In todays society, it is considered a legitimate critique to criticize a writers upbringing. Usually these authors are upper class, white, and "privileged" if you will.
This is a result of multiculturism. The mindset at the moment is to encourage outsider voices from the under represented in society.
But haven't most writers throughout history in any given age been the product of an upperclass upbringing? Can wealth really be a valid critique of a persons work if most revered works in the western cannon been from "privileged" writers?
Also, doesn't history prove to us that, even if a writer comes from poverty, that they're works will be accepted by the academic community anyway?
In short, should wealth be really be considered a valid critique of a writers work?
>>8104074
bump
>>8104074
>In short, should wealth be really be considered a valid critique of a writers work?
no
should it be an important consideration for the context of their work when discussing it
yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_in_art
It's not a matter solely of upbringing ("You are rich, therefore your art has no worth/greater worth"), it's a matter of how that upbringing relates to the work of art. Can we as a society trust a rich white man from Manhattan to write artfully and truthfully about a ghetto black from Chicago? If we can trust them to do it, then should we even allow/encourage them, since that kind of encouragement could just as easily be spent on actual ghetto black writers? If the aim is to encourage outsider voices, how can you justify the perspective of the rich white man in this case?
And you're right, historically writers have not been judged by their origins but by their work alone. But in today's world, could you take a Rockefeller writing fiction about ghetto thugs seriously? Only if it was artfully written, you'd say. But then your concern is not with "the truth" or "authenticity" but with "beauty" and "artfulness." You can see how either side will justify itself.
i can't seem to think of any writer currently that has been criticized due to his upbringing. the majority of writers tend to come from privileged backgrounds. i would say the upper class dominates literature more than any other artistic field.
i think that there tends to be an invisible boogeyman that /lit/ projects in believing that the reason they don't get published is bc they are male, upper class, and white, but the truth is simpler - the majority of us aren't good writers.
>>8104433
Just by way of a roundabout example, Franzen caught a lot of flack for Purity because people didn't feel his representation of women and struggle was not genuine. (I think people were upset about The Corrections being too privileged-white-boy-y, too, but I really don't care enough to keep track.)
If you're American, you might remember Hilary Clinton's autobiography a few years back. She talks about how she and her husband were dirt poor when they left the whitehouse. Many people were offended by this because it did not seem genuine.
That's just what I can think of before caffeine. If you stop and think about it, I'm sure you can find more examples. In general, I think only mediocre and under writers get this brand of criticism. In my opinion, it is a pretty lazy, though not undeserved, criticism.
Can you imagine if Harold Encandenza was written as some poor public school kid who happened to be great at tennis and words? It wouldn't have accurately represented the experience of growing up poor, and it wouldn't have reflected DFW's experience. It would have been ingenuine. Critics could fairly say that he had grown up too wealthy to write that story.
Who wants to read nigger books anyway?
>>8105127
Thanks /pol/
Bengali literature is very good.
>>8104433
>i would say the upper class dominates literature more than any other artistic field.
Yeah, I mean all concert pianists and film directors are just street trash aren't they.
>>8105116
A male author who doesn't accurately represent women has nothing to do with class.
Further, there are two reasons why Franzen receives extra scrutiny: he's the most recognizable living literary author, and his Perchance to Dream essay reeked of privilege and outright racist language. There's no serious critic who has hit him for being too "white-boy-y." In fact, his most vocal detractors agree that The Corrections is fantastic.
You've got to find a source of someone being criticized for their background in order to have a point here. Shouts to Egon tho.
>>8105230
>Bengali literature is very good.
That's also written by very wealthy, upper-caste privileged Hindus.
>>8104148
Well said
I'm pretty autistic when it comes to social class and social success. But in literature I don't really mind, probably because a lot of if not most great literature was written by those of a higher social background.
John Green attended prep school
Tao Lin's parents are rich as fuck and bought him a New York apartment when he was 21
Houellebecq attended a boarding school
Tolstoy was rich as hell
Just three names that are popular here. Literature is perhaps the least financially reliable career in the arts, so it makes sense that only those with money or connections etc to fall back on give it a real go.
>>8105377
and heres a superior writer born to peasents.
Now you reminded me of some dude bitching about Dickens caricaturing unions in Hard Times since "he's a comfortable middle class man".Pretty sure Lenin also did, calling the book "sentimentalist bourgeois trash".
>>8105271
>There's no serious critic who has hit him for being too "white-boy-y."
You're definitely right! Anything resembling this kind of criticism is oblique, and like >>8104433
says, a lot of people here conflate it with the SJW bogeyman to impersonalize their own failures.
Thanks for mentioning Perchance to Dream! I pretty exclusively read the criticism in a small local paper, hardly serious, and there are a couple contributors who just hate the guy. Now I know why!
