Homework for October 17
Read the reviews of Winesburg, Ohio posted on canvas, and answer to either:
1. Is there any particular unfair criticism that you would like to rebut? Why and how?
2. Is there any criticism that made you think of Winesburg, Ohio in a more enlightened way? Why and how?
3. Comment on the structure of several of the pieces (even if not all). Is there any that might be useful to you as a model? Any that you think is poorly structured or makes you doubt what kind of writing is permitted in this mode? How so?
Edward Hopper, "Summer Interior", 1909
1. Is there any particular unfair criticism that you would like to rebut? Why and how?
2. Is there any criticism that made you think of Winesburg, Ohio in a more enlightened way? Why and how?
3. Comment on the structure of several of the pieces (even if not all). Is there any that might be useful to you as a model? Any that you think is poorly structured or makes you doubt what kind of writing is permitted in this mode? How so?
Edward Hopper, "Summer Interior", 1909
The criticism from Burton Rascoe of the Chicago Tribune was interesting to me. First of all, I disagreed with his opening line that states that all the stories are focused around the sex lives of the members of the town. While sex is no doubt evident in many of the stories I think what our author was after was the implications of sex or the more deep, underlying themes behind the sex the characters were having. For example, In Death, the mother's sex life is depicted throughout her reflection on her past. She remembers back to when she was constantly searching for a man to love and this lead her to sleeping around a little bit. She then goes into her marriage with her husband who she is not satisfied with and her little love flare with Doctor Reefy. More importantly than just the sex, as the critic put it, the reason behind the mother's need for sex is more important. When she was young and sleeping around she was doing so because she was constantly searching for better. She was not satisfied with her current life and thus seeked to improve it by finding the right man. She never found that right man. The sexual tension with Doctor Reefy helped to show the author's view on love as fleeting. He sees love, at least love that is full of extreme passion, as something that can not be sustained and therefore as temporary. So the sex is really not the important part here, rather what the sex represents. I do appreciate however, the critic's point toward the end of his response in which he credits Sherwood's ability to intensely capture life. I think all of the stories have a surprisingly large dose of realism in them that can only be achieved by someone that notices life in extreme detail. Many of the other critiques mentioned this idea that Anderson does a wonderful job of capturing the small town feel. Rather than talk about the greatness that many small towns get praise for- the comfort, the closeness- Anderson talks about the negatives to astounding realism and effectiveness.
ResponderExcluirThe "Sordid Tales" criticism by an anonymous author find faults in the motives that drive the characters and plot of the Winesburg, Ohio tales. The criticism, it seems, stems from a defensiveness of the author's own childhood, which most likely occurred in a small-town similar to Winesburg, Ohio, as well as a wish to preserve the optimistic and overly-friendly facade found in many small, midwestern towns. It seems that this author, upon reading the stories, was personally offended at the account of the "misdemeanors and crimes of sex" that, to this author, aimed to paint the town as a representation of the pettiness and individual immorality of midwestern communities. However, it seems the criticizer's personal involvement in the setting of Winesburg, Ohio blinds him/her from recognizing the essence of the stories. Anderson's craft in depicting significance, spirituality, and meaning amongst ordinary characters propels Winesburg, Ohio above any petty grasps at criticism made by a personally offended reader who refuses to recognize the truth behind many of Anderson's claims about life or purpose.
ResponderExcluirResponse by: Zachary Fagan
ResponderExcluirA criticism of Winesburg, Ohio that made me think of it in a more enlightened way was by Heywood Broun from the New York Tribune. In the criticism, Broun cites a description of one of the characters, Wash Williams, specifically a sentence that states “Everything about him was unclean. Even the whites of his eyes looked soiled” (Anderson). He then goes on to say that descriptions like the one provided “...seem to us pert touches which come between a writer and a character” (Broun 160). By having said this, I came to realize that this type of description throughout Winesburg, Ohio truly do take away from the raw emotion and reactions that a reader can have. Simply put, it seems as though these types of descriptions are meant to showcase the artistry of the author, and this is pointed out by Broun as well. While reading Winesburg, Ohio, I had a lost sense of realness in almost every story. I felt as though the characters and their descriptions were not believable, and through this criticism I now see why I thought this.
Additionally, there were moments in the collection of short stories when I found myself questioning the point of including some things that Anderson did. Broun provides the example in “Mother” of an instance where this occurs. Again, this takes away from the reading experience. While it may be artistically appealing, it doesn’t contribute anything to the story as a whole. To me, Broun highlights exactly the problems that I had while reading Winesburg, Ohio. Not to say that I did not like the book. However, I believe if Anderson omitted some of the futile details and description, it would have been a more elevated reading experience.
Response by Rebecca Hollister
ResponderExcluirWhile I do think that Winesburg, Ohio has flaws just like any piece of literature, and while it was definitely not my favorite piece that we have read in class, I do think the review by Burton Rascoe from the Chicago Tribune is a little unfair. While there are many stories that focus on sexual relations between characters and their sexual desires, I don’t think Anderson places this idea in the stories multiple times to simply be crude, rather I think there is a deeper meaning behind his repetition of sexual themes. I don’t agree with the critic when he writes, “these stories are practically all concerned chiefly with the sex life of the inhabitants of the Ohio village,” because I think the inclusion of sex is not the chief concern of the stories, but rather at least partially serves to emphasize remnants of strict religious and even Puritan aspects of society still present in small towns at this time. Additionally, while I agree that Anderson’s writing is not incredibly poetic, I don’t think it is a “crude” employment of English as Rascoe writes in his review. I think the stories are written in this manner not because Anderson cannot write beautifully, but because his stories are meant to be matter-of-fact and to the point, and poetic writing might have even distracted from the main goal of his work.
Kevin Hautigan's Response:
ResponderExcluirThe review written by Heywood Broun in the New York Tribune was interesting. I disagreed with Broun that often Anderson would write to show off prowess rather than to describe. He points to the example of Anderson discussing the appearance of an individual and noting “even the whites of his eyes looked soiled.” However, this aids description as Anderson understands that with a man that is nearly incomprehensibly run down and dirty, pointing to aspects of his appearance is not enough. Anderson discussed the appearance in impossible terms to clarify that the man was run down to an unthinkable level.
Additionally, Broun claims Anderson’s tales are exaggerative as it is strange a small town contains such “a large percentage of neurotics.” This analysis was enlightening because I realized why Anderson focused on the negative. While Broun meant to criticize Anderson for his unreal take on town life, I believe Anderson wrote this because often people are ignorant to the horrifying pasts of their peers. Anderson chose to focus on these pasts as to contend that they are not exceptions, but rather the rule. This is demonstrated by the point of view employed by Anderson in which the narrator would share the deepest thoughts of individuals (such as the school teacher’s fear that his hands were evil). Broun goes as far as to describe the collection as “monotonous” as Anderson never finds any “comic” stories. I do not think this critique is valid because Anderson’s end goal in the book is express dark stories and pasts that make up a town, demonstrating the complexity and often grotesqueness of average people. A comic tale could detract from his message and feed into the ignorance that people often employ when thinking about those that live around them.
All of the reviews offer insight into the many different ways that a writer can approach a review and all would be helpful in my personal attempt at one. One that stuck out for me was the one by John Nicholas Beffel called “Small Towns and Broken Lives.” Beffel frames the context of his review through the lens of its contrast to a previous work by Anderson. By this, I do not mean that he contrasts the two works throughout his review, but rather that he contextualizes the greatness of “Winesburg, Ohio” by noting how much better it is in contrast to Anderson’s previous work “Marching Men.” As a tool, Beffel demonstrates how an author can be critiqued by comparing them to themselves in order to form a narrative not only of their literary journey but also of how the reviewer reacted to the work. He then puts the subject of “Winesburg, Ohio” into a more universal context when he says that this book could take place in any town in “Illinois, Indiana, New York, and countless commonwealths.” By doing so, he establishes the importance of the novel and foreshadows how he a reader could connect to it. Adding in a personal connection allows Beffel to create more credibility for the readers and fosters more of a connection to whoever reads the review by showing them that they may also connect with the work. Furthermore, the text does not include the portion of Beffel’s review where he disputes the claims of a negative review, but this establishes another technique for a review which is to create an argument through other’s viewpoints. He does not just have to state how he feels but rather discredit negative analysis and offer some of his own in return. Beffel offers many ways to construct a positive review, and these may also be flipped to create a convincing negative review. Other reviews that stuck out to me were ones by Heywood Broun in the New York Tribune and the one by William Faulkner from the Dallas Morning News. I appreciated how Faulkner approached his review by pointing out how the title effectively demonstrates the favorable points of the stories. He even begins with an exclamation “The simplicity of the title!” which is a statement that mirrors the simplicity that he praises in Anderson and provokes significant impact by breaking the typical analytic style of declarative phrases with an exclamatory one. He furthermore bases his review around a rhetorical question meant to implore the reader to consider its idea. By doing so, he not only adds credibility to his review by getting the reader to subtly agree with him but also shares the credibility with Anderson’s work that Anderson knowingly or not meets the standards set by the question. He also makes Anderson’s accomplishment greater by the fact the it was achieved despite Anderson’s supposed ignorance which also makes Faulkner’s claims sound greater because now he is framed as the one with experience. Broun uses a quote from Anderson’s own novel in order to critique the stories, which is an interesting way to base critique because it means that the author himself would have to agree with their own misstep. Broun also creates a connection with the reader like Beffel by calling on the universal experiences from school so that the reader is engaged with his writing as he goes story by story.
ResponderExcluirResponse to question three.
ExcluirThe criticism expressed by Heywood Broun is unfair, I believe, especially because some of the shortcomings the author ascribes to the book are simply a failure of interpretation. In particular, the passage in which the reviewer states, "Oftentimes we are not with Anderson. His introductory chapter, 'The Book of the Grotesque' meant nothing to us," is especially unfair. Not only is the introductory chapter a first taste of the tone, prose, and setting that the reader will see later on in the book, it sets the stage for the overall theme of the book, which I interpret to be that each story subject is a 'grotesque' in some way. Every character is dealing with some strife, some worry, some hidden or public thing that ails them. This is the crux of the novel, which I believe is fundamentally about how people deal with the difficulties of life, with elements that are at times surreal or exaggerated. I believe that the first chapter is an excellent example of this, and it sets up this theme to be explored further by other stories. "The grotesques were not all horrible," comments the narrator, and this could not be more true. Not everyone is dealing with a gruesome issue, but every person has some aspect of their life that troubles them. This realization is crucial to the understanding of the book, as is this chapter, and I believe that Heywood Broun simply does not see that.
ResponderExcluirThis is from Nolan Peacock
Excluir