I'm not well-read, and my faulty and highly subjective and selective memory is telling me that whenever a class has to deal with "[great] American literature" the books are almost always set somewhere in the southern U.S.. (Parenthetically--highly redundant, I know--do you add periods after acronyms with dots?)
Does anyone have any comment on this comment?
Lessee...Faulkner, Harper Lee, Harriet Beecher Stowe (by which I mean her work
Uncle Tom's Cabin), Carson McCullers, Eudora Welty...yeah, that's all Southern. But most Twain isn't by any stretch (Missouri ain't the South, although Virginia is...go figure), and I have yet to see anybody refer to Bret Harte as "Southern" as well.
The Catcher in the Rye is a piece of crap book, but if someone ever refers to it as "great American literature", then it wouldn't count either. Nor would
In Cold Blood, which isn't actually that bad. Nothing Poe wrote is especially Southern (he lived in Maryland). Fenimore Cooper (who committed a bunch of Offenses that are probably more famous than he is by now) was all up in New York. Washington Irving and Hawthorne were both New England and New York, mostly (that I can remember off the top of my head;
Rappucini's Daughter certainly isn't the southern US). Henry James is all about going to Europe. Hemingway usually is set in either Europe or Cuba or someplace that isn't America at all; Jack London is usually up in the Yukon (except for weird random stuff like
The Sea Wolf and
The Iron Heel); Edith Wharton is all "high society" in New York; Crane's
Red Badge of Courage might count, but nobody ever knows where it takes place anyway. And then the two Sinclairs are nowhere near the South.
To sum up: a disproportionate amount of the most often taught lit in American grade school is set in the South; most of what's not isn't. I still think most American "great literature" is terrible, though. Goethe and Mann pound them all into the dust.
Or
does he?
