Welcome to the Literary Blog Hop hosted by The Blue Bookcase!
This monthly blog hop is open to blogs that primarily feature book reviews of literary fiction, classic literature, and general literary discussion.
How do I know if my blog qualifies as "literary"? Literature has many definitions, but for our purposes your blog qualifies as "literary" if it focuses primarily on texts with aesthetic merit. In other words, texts that show quality not only in narrative but also in the effect of their language and structure. YA literature may fit into this category, but if your blog focuses primarily on non-literary YA, fantasy, romance, paranormal romance, or chick lit, you may prefer to join the blog hop at Crazy-for-books that is open to book blogs of all kinds.
Instructions for entering the Literary Blog Hop:
1. Grab the code for the Button.
2. Answer the following prompt on your blog.
(Suggestions for future prompts? Email to them us at thebluebookcase@gmail.com)
Here's our question this week:
How do you feel about fictional characters who are obviously closely based on the author? Is this an example of authorial superego? Or just a natural extension of the "write what you know" advice?
Our answer comes from Christina:
For April Fool's Day I wrote a joke review of Tyra Banks' Modelland. Anything involving Tyra Banks is going to be very TYRA TYRA TYRA, and Modelland is no exception. The pathetic protagonist has the extremely high forehead that Ms. Banks continually bemoans on TV, and there is also a supermodel named Ci-L who seems to be a superhuman, supercelebrity version of Tyra herself. A couple of other more minor characters have less obvious Tyra qualities. Of course I don't even need to mention that it's a horrible book with extremely weak everything. But the tendency to write oneself into a novel is not limited to sloppy or novice authors.
More than two hundred years ago, in Emmeline, respected and popular author Charlotte Smith wrote herself into the novel as a sort of sad but noble victim figure. The introduction to my edition explained that Ms. Smith was looking for sympathy and understanding from her readers, so she gave one likeable character all the same real-life struggles she had. It sorta reminds me of reality TV- that urge to tell-all in order to get sympathy from strangers. Charlotte Smith wasn't embarrassed or secretive about her intentions with this character- she freely admitted that the character was a stand-in for herself; she wanted it to be public knowledge.
Last year, before reading The Marriage Plot, I heard a radio interview with Jeffrey Eugenides in which he explained that one of the characters, Mitchell, had had very similar experiences to himself. But Mr. Eugenides stated petty clearly that he doesn't consider Mitchell an autobiographical character. It seems to me that most literary authors nowadays are eager to distance themselves from their novels. The protagonist is NOT based on the author. The story is NOT autobiographical. Why do they dislike these insinuations so much? I don't think there's anything wrong with it when it's done well. I guess I like it in books that I like, and dislike it in books that I don't. I suppose that makes me a rather fickle reader/critic.
What do you think?
3. Add your link to the Linky List below.
Happy Hopping!
This monthly blog hop is open to blogs that primarily feature book reviews of literary fiction, classic literature, and general literary discussion.
How do I know if my blog qualifies as "literary"? Literature has many definitions, but for our purposes your blog qualifies as "literary" if it focuses primarily on texts with aesthetic merit. In other words, texts that show quality not only in narrative but also in the effect of their language and structure. YA literature may fit into this category, but if your blog focuses primarily on non-literary YA, fantasy, romance, paranormal romance, or chick lit, you may prefer to join the blog hop at Crazy-for-books that is open to book blogs of all kinds.
Instructions for entering the Literary Blog Hop:
1. Grab the code for the Button.
2. Answer the following prompt on your blog.
(Suggestions for future prompts? Email to them us at thebluebookcase@gmail.com)
Here's our question this week:
How do you feel about fictional characters who are obviously closely based on the author? Is this an example of authorial superego? Or just a natural extension of the "write what you know" advice?
Our answer comes from Christina:
For April Fool's Day I wrote a joke review of Tyra Banks' Modelland. Anything involving Tyra Banks is going to be very TYRA TYRA TYRA, and Modelland is no exception. The pathetic protagonist has the extremely high forehead that Ms. Banks continually bemoans on TV, and there is also a supermodel named Ci-L who seems to be a superhuman, supercelebrity version of Tyra herself. A couple of other more minor characters have less obvious Tyra qualities. Of course I don't even need to mention that it's a horrible book with extremely weak everything. But the tendency to write oneself into a novel is not limited to sloppy or novice authors.
More than two hundred years ago, in Emmeline, respected and popular author Charlotte Smith wrote herself into the novel as a sort of sad but noble victim figure. The introduction to my edition explained that Ms. Smith was looking for sympathy and understanding from her readers, so she gave one likeable character all the same real-life struggles she had. It sorta reminds me of reality TV- that urge to tell-all in order to get sympathy from strangers. Charlotte Smith wasn't embarrassed or secretive about her intentions with this character- she freely admitted that the character was a stand-in for herself; she wanted it to be public knowledge.
Last year, before reading The Marriage Plot, I heard a radio interview with Jeffrey Eugenides in which he explained that one of the characters, Mitchell, had had very similar experiences to himself. But Mr. Eugenides stated petty clearly that he doesn't consider Mitchell an autobiographical character. It seems to me that most literary authors nowadays are eager to distance themselves from their novels. The protagonist is NOT based on the author. The story is NOT autobiographical. Why do they dislike these insinuations so much? I don't think there's anything wrong with it when it's done well. I guess I like it in books that I like, and dislike it in books that I don't. I suppose that makes me a rather fickle reader/critic.
What do you think?
3. Add your link to the Linky List below.
Happy Hopping!
Logging you in...
readingthethings 62p · 677 weeks ago
mechristine 36p · 677 weeks ago
Brittney · 677 weeks ago
my book affair · 677 weeks ago
His own father was incarcerated there for running up debts, a fact which Dickens kept to himself all his life, only speaking of it to a couple of friends , and never to his close family. Up until this point, no gentleman writer had experienced the hardship endured by the lower classes, they not having had a voice themselves in literature, and this partly explains Dickens's popularity. He told the story that only he could have told, having secretly lived thorough it himself. So it is difficult to separate Dickens's story form that of Nicholas Nickelby or David Copperfield; to know where Dickens ended and they begun, so complete are their stories intertwined. Because of this, I would have to conclude that it is from our great life experiences that the finest novels come, be it consciously done or not. Of course depth of feeling and a fine imaginative mind also served Dickens well, as evidenced by his wonderful plot lines and memorable characters, but that is another day's topic!
my book affair · 677 weeks ago
Well, if you consider the works of Charles Dickens, one of the best author's to have written in the English language in my opinion, his novels invariably contain something of his own life and experience. The squalor of Victorian London, that so brilliantly captured in novels like 'Oliver twist' and 'Our Mutual Friend', was something that had shaped him as a boy. He wrote from first hand experience of what the Debtor's prison did to a family at that time.
His own father was incarcerated there for running up debts, a fact which Dickens kept to himself all his life, only speaking of it to a couple of friends, and never to his close family. Up until this point, no gentleman writer had experienced the hardship endured by the lower classes, they not having had a voice themselves in literature, and this partly explains Dickens's popularity. He told the story that only he could have told, having secretly lived thorough it himself. So it is difficult to separate Dickens's story form that of Nicholas Nickelby or David Copperfield; to know where Dickens ended and they begun, so complete are their stories intertwined. Because of this, I would have to conclude that it is from our great life experiences that the finest novels come, be it consciously done or not. Of course depth of feeling and a fine imaginative mind also served Dickens well, as evidenced by his wonderful plot lines and memorable characters, but that is another day's topic!
@BenoitLelievre · 677 weeks ago
IngridLola14 79p · 677 weeks ago
@zeteticat · 677 weeks ago
@debnance · 677 weeks ago
BTW, I miss participating in this meme. I can never seem to find out the prompt in time to participate.
IngridLola14 79p · 677 weeks ago
_Bethany_ 93p · 677 weeks ago