Some folks might feel that the current, hot publishing genre, Street Lit, with its tales of gangsta' life and love, is inappropriate for inclusion in library collections. Street Lit books may be highly sexual, violent, filled with profanity and slang, or all of the aforementioned. Books in this genre frequently have suggestive covers and titles reminiscent of the pulp magazines and books of the early 20th century. Thong on Fire by Noire is typical of this genre.
So why would a library want to add these books to its collection? The answer is simply that the mission of libraries in the 21st century is to serve every reader not judge what a reader should or should not read. These books are hot and circulate like crazy. They also serve as a reminder that the history of Western literature is rampant with stories of great works of literature that were castigated for their use of language and storylines.
Pulp novels and magazines of the early 20th century, serial novels, and other popular works were not considered library-worthy. The standard library mission of the past was that libraries were to be sources of "culturally" valuable materials. Librarians were the selectors and arbiters of what was "appropriate" reading material. Today, libraries and librarians seek to match all readers with the book that meets that reader's needs and desires. The reader is the force behind selection and the librarian is merely the "guide on the side". The bottom line in today's library is that if readers are engaged by Street Lit, then it should be included in the collection.
Thong on Fire may not turn out to be a lasting literary gem but it helps to remember that Herman Melville wrote Omoo and Typee before he wrote Moby Dick. The critics and public hated Moby Dick when it was published, but who today (apart from Melville scholars and English majors) remembers Omoo and Typee much less reads them. Omoo and Typee were hot when they were published.
I am reminded of Chaucer, whose Canterbury Tales are filled with risque' humor and storylines. Chaucer created a sensation when he dared to write in the Old English vernacular, the language of the street of his time, rather than the courtly Norman French of the ruling classes and royalty.
I am also reminded of Shakespeare, whose genius for inventing English words from Latin enriched our language immeasurably. I like to think that he would have appreciated the term "bootylicious".
Finally, I am reminded of Langston Hughes, whose own vernacular writings earned him a great deal of censure from the black intellectual community of his time. They felt thatHughes' use of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) was harmful and contrary to the efforts of African Americans in their struggle for civil rights. His poem, Mother to Son, would not be the same without the use of AAVE.
Mother to Son
Well, son, I'll tell you:
Life for me ain't been no crystal stair.
It's had tacks in it,
And splinters,
And boards torn up,
And places with no carpet on the floor—
Bare.
But all the time
I'se been a-climbin' on,
And reachin' landin's,
And turnin' corners,
And sometimes goin' in the dark
Where there ain't been no light.
So, boy, don't you turn back.
Don't you set down on the steps.
'Cause you finds it's kinder hard.
Don't you fall now—
For I'se still goin',
honey,I'se still climbin',
And life for me ain't been no crystal stair.
Posts
