http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5225091
I personally thought this was an interesting disscusion. After listening to this, I was even more confused about Nick Chiles opinion. On NPR, he said that he didn't have a problem with street lit when according to the NY Times article it is evident that he DOES. He claims that he has a problem with walking into the African American Fiction section and the first thing he sees is street lit. He also said on NPR that he didn't have a problem with street lit being in the same section as other African American Lit. That is not what I got from the NY Times article. I mean in the article he even named actual titles of the books that he called smut! He had such a scathing opinion piece in the NY Times, but on NPR he changed his opinion...which is ridiculous! I felt that he changed his opinion because he was in the presence of a book editor and a street lit author. Nick Chiles waffled his opinion on NPR. I don't agree with Nick Chiles but if you have that strong of an opinion on something, you need to stick to it.
Radiah
http://www.urban-reviews.com
info@urban-reviews.com
1 comment:
I don't think he waffled at all. His op-ed was clearly slanted against street lit, but he never said he thought there was no place for it. And that is what was presented during this interview. I think it's easy to interpret his scathing opinion as being anti-street...when what I think his point was one that I actually share as well. It's an absurd imbalance to have "AA Literature" primarily defined and represented by street books.
What was most interesting was that Relentless Aaaron is the current street representative. He lives and dies by his following in the streets, and touts the attention as a measure of his writing...yet it's well known that most of the street vendors have been known to not even carry his book because readers have been bringing them back in droves because of poor editing. Just a thought.
Post a Comment