Thoughts on feminist Doris Lessing winning the Nobel Prize for literature?

Question

It seems like a great wonderful thing to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Lessing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_eu/britain_lessing_reaction

What's up with (non-feminist blowhard Yale literary critic) Harold Bloom criticizing Lessing already?

"American literary critic Harold Bloom called the academy's decision 'pure political correctness. Although Ms. Lessing at the beginning of her writing career had a few admirable qualities, I find her work for the past 15 years quite unreadable ... fourth-rate science fiction'"?

LMAO. Er, I study literary criticism. Harold Bloom is a *blowhard*. And, no, not all literary critics are such tremendous blowhards as Bloom.

Gnu, get a frickin' grip. Nobody suggested we "get a rope." Nobody even mentioned Bloom's incident with Naomi Wolf. It's not particularly relevant to his comments on Lessing. One needn't judge Bloom based on this incident; anyone can recognize from his body of written work and his theories of art that he's a blowhard who thinks literature is nice and pretty and fun, but shouldn't try to change or affect or even comment on the screwed-up and backward aspects of real life too much. Ahh, how I love for art to protect the status quo.

But thanks for the unnecessarily rude and spastic off-topic interjections.

Answer 1

I was so shocked by the coverage of Doris Lessing's award on the Yahoo news site that I immediately posted a question here asking why Bloom was being such a dog in the manger - nobody answered yet, alas. Now I have to admit that I had no very clear idea who Harold Bloom was, or I would have been slightly less surprised. The interesting thing, to me, is why Yahoo news and the others thought they had to 'spice up' news of the award by giving such prominence to his nastiness. Two theories present themselves. 1. They thought not many of us great unwashed would know who Lessing was (because they underestimate her female readership, or think nobody under 50 reads books any more), so they added Bloom for his (somewhat doubtful) 'fame' factor. 2. They really hate Doris Lessing and everything she stands for, so they wanted to make sure the coverage wasn't going to be too pleasant for her to look at later.

Good on ya Doris, I say!

Gnu, you're not that articulate. You mistake invective for eloquence.

Answer 2

I believe it is a condition ingrained in the masses from time immemorial. That condition being the favoring of special groups within society to cause turmoil...purpose? The purpose is that through the creation of a every day "enemy" the ones in power are able to weaken the people as a whole and better control them. This manipulation became much more prominent and complex with the crumbling of the church's authority in the late middle ages. With the church no longer in full control of peoples actions (church doctrine supporting older brother the lord, all in the family) the rich were being focused on as the evil ones. We have at this time revolutions against the corrupt rich in France, Germany, and others. The rich learned from their ways and installed puppet rich (football stars and actors) while removing themselves from the screen of daily life. The next step was making a new focus for the people to attack...this was first racial with African Americans and then Women and now Men. Its all smoke and mirrors and I do not know how far it goes so I withdraw from society lest I make error and follow the pipers tune.

Answer 3

let me get this straight. A literary critic... said something critical... about someone's writing?

It's outrageous! OUTRAGEOUS!

EDIT

Oh, well since he's a blowhard and a non feminist, I say we get a rope!

(Let's get Naomi Wolf in on this too!)

(Has studied literary theory as well. whoop-dee-dooooo!)

EDIT

For those unaware, Harold Bloom should never be allowed to speak or be seen in public or to have an academic position or a career of any kind, because he's an evil sexist oppressor who touched Naomi Wolf's thigh... or so she said many years after the fact and of course we must believe her or we're sexist.)

EDIT

Patois makes a valid point though. Anyone who teaches "south of the border" (that's what we called Yalies at Harvard) is not to be trusted.


EDIT

Yeah, you know Thom Wolfe was right! We need a return to 'social realism" and "relevance"... like paintings of happy farmers and factory workers marching hand in hand toward a bright future under the revolution.

l'art pour l'art, baby.

EDIT

People who think the purpose of art is to change society are the worst kind of philistine. Art is to change the soul, not to pursue some nonsense ideology.

EDIT

I bet you think Tolstoy's "What is Art?" is the ultimate in aesthetic thought.

Mwa ha ha hah haaaah


FAIRY

blowhard n.
Someone who is vocal in expressing opinions with which Franzia Kafka disagrees, but is too articulate for her to simply call a "troll"

Answer 4

I think that it would be good if Ms. Lessing was not tagged as a "feminist writer" even though she wrote novels connected with feminist ideas..

Bloom can say what ever he wants to but he is probably encouraging some people to go read Lessing.

Answer 5

ALL Nobel Prizes in all categories are awarded in decisions based on "political correctness". What we as an evolving society choose to explore through discourse, art and research at any given time essentially describes ourselves AND defines ourselves at that given time. Those who find the most meaningful pulse-points in that exploration, are "politically correct" in that they examine the most dynamic, catalytic events in the evolution and transcension of humanity at any given moment. What people like Bloom get hysterical about is the "defining" and catalytic" components of that healthy exploration. Yale is notorious for spawning unhealthy notions of elitist social engineering, and it's "school of thought" rabidly supports the suppression of branches of research and human exploration that conflict with their agendas. (Keep in mind, Bush joined Skull and Bones at Yale.)

Answer 6

Doris Lessing was extremely popular in The UK in the late 80's.
She held meeting all over our country in Town Halls.
She was viewed as being slightly eccentric and I have not heard of her in many years.
It surprises me that she received this accolade as the quality of her writing, from what I can remember was rather lacking.
Her comment on being told she had won this prize was disingenuous.

Answer 7

Feminists have long claimed Lessing as one of their own, because of her nuanced portrayal of women in her writing. But Lessing has forcefully rejected feminism and does not want to be called one:

''What the feminists want of me is something they haven't examined because it comes from religion. They want me to bear witness. What they would really like me to say is, 'Ha, sisters, I stand with you side by side in your struggle toward the golden dawn where all those beastly men are no more.' Do they really want people to make oversimplified statements about men and women? In fact, they do. I've come with great regret to this conclusion.''

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/01/10/specials/lessing-space.html


Other people's thoughts on Lessing from the literature section of Y!A - mostly positive:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AopWp8_Jxv1qfUcqRmYWap0jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071011143551AAFwdwV

.

Answer 8

Yeah good for her I have read one of her sci-fi books and it wasn't very good, don't know about her other stuff though. I like the way she reacted when she was told "Oh Christ! ... I couldn't care less." and started complaining she would probably get begging letters.

Answer 9

She has always denied being a feminist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/11/nlessing111.xml