My sister and I have a number of movies that we tap for quotes endlessly. We quote movies the way, I presume, people used to quote books and poems before movies and television. So why should I not do the same thing in my book?
There is an idea out there that book knowledge is superior to knowledge gained through television or the screen in general. I could write the book with only literary references, but how many people would catch the allusions? If I write the book with only movie reference, how many will catch on? [And will I get flack for using such pop material and snubbing thousands of years of literary tradition?] Of course it depends on the books and films we're talking about, but, in general, most likely, many more readers will connect with the film references. To oversimplify, the tradition of exchanging strictly literary quotes among the masses is not as healthy as it once was. It's an emperor in a democratic country; titular and with less power to influence and communicate than it once had.
But a book that only leans on movies has an odd flavor to it. It's the white rapper, the Mexican cook in the Thai restaurant; something that just seems miscast. Now if I indulge in both, though, a little Coming to America here and a little Heart of Darkness there, now you're legit. Or at least more so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Randall, RanDALL...
I like that word, titular. It's not a word used that often. You make an interesting point, and you're right; most people today are not very well read and would not understand if you went around quoting old poets work.
I would of course, I'm quite versed in the world of literature.
I think pop culture references have gained a lot of cred in most circles; the Booker Prize set might give you trouble for it, but I think as long as you build something meaningful out of them, using those signifiers is perfectly acceptable.
But that's me--I've never finished reading anything older than 1900.
Post a Comment