An interesting trend is sweeping our nation — mass readings.Cities are officially choosing one book to read over the course ofsix months or a year. Right now groups of enthusiastic readers aretrying to turn entirecities into one big book club. And not even one you attend to pick upchicks, like most book clubs — it’s more of a “community builder.’
These “community builders” have been used in cities like Seattle(the first), Little Rock and Rochester. The most successful tookplace in Chicago, a reading of To Kill a Mocking Bird, by Harper Lee.Now cities like New York, Los Angeles and Philadelphia are followingsuit, and we may be able to expect one in San Diego soon.
There are many purposes behind “One Book, One City”; many areobvious, and others are much subtler. The two reasons that are themost noble, and the ones making this idea such a popular trend, areto encourage reading and promote unity within the community. Thedesired outcome of such a program is that people who do not normallyread find a hobby in literature; it gives people something to talkabout on the bus. More ambitiously, the program also hopes to broadenthe understanding of the masses.
However, like most such events these days, it began with nobleintentions, but has become something much different. Perverted byminority and feminist activist groups and snooty literature critics,”One Book, One City” has become a contest to see whose messagereaches the masses.
It’s just another platform now.
The ridiculously familiar scene at San Diego State University (oframpant political correctness) is taking place across the nation oversomething that should promote unity. If the book doesn’t correctlyportray women and minorities in positive and uplifting ways, it isn’t”fit” for the city. On top of that, you get literature criticsconstantly condemning anything that isn’t up to their criticalstandard, sort of the indie-rock version of literature. (As if themasses would understand or care.)
So, the result is a fabricated book whose main purpose ispropaganda for a minority group — a book that is neither interestingnor striking to the average citizen. You also have bitter criticstelling you not to read it.
There is nothing wrong with reading a book that opens the city’seyes to a social problem, or an issue of sensitivity regardingminorities. But when the book becomes an excuse for the promotion ofthese ideas, rather than something that will stimulate and entertainthe masses, it turns the whole program into a failure.
Chicago’s program was a success because To Kill A Mockingbird isnot only a brilliant novel, but its selection wasn’t an overt attemptby a social group to get its message out. It is also popular enoughthat many people have heard of it, even if they haven’t read it. Itsparks an interest in the average person, yet doesn’t go over thepublic’s head (completely). Plus, if push comes to shove — there’s amovie.
The critics and activists have lost track of a very importantpoint — this book is for the city, not for them. It’s for the automechanic who hasn’t read a book in five years and the girl workingretail whose last read was Harry Potter. The point is to get thesepeople into literature, to expose them to a good book and to givethem a valuable hobby that boosts their self-esteem (reading makesyou feel smart, even if you aren’t really — kind of like a Ph.D.)
If you know good literature from shallow drivel, then you don’tneed a city panel to tell you what to read.
The right book for any city is a book the masses will read (or atleast rent the movie from Blockbuster), not something that forces anagenda down their throats. If activists would stop trying to makethis program into a machine and critics would stop flapping theiryaps, we could all relax and do what we set out to — read.
–Joe Zarro is an undeclared sophomore.
–This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheDaily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com.Anonymous letters will not be printed — include your full name,major and year in school.
