An illuminating comparison of Ann Petry s
The Street and Gwendolyn Brooks s
Maud Martha with Cynthia Kadohata s
The Floating World and Chang-rae Lee s
Native Speaker by You-me Park and Gayle Wald ( Native Daughters in the Promised Land: Gender, Race, and the Question of Separate Spheres,
AL 70: 607-33) establishes the extent to which minority literature represents the boundaries between public and private spheres in the United States and how these boundaries reinforce and overlap class and gender lines. The critics conclusion is that both the African American and Asian American groups are feminized (in the sense of being marked under the sign of the feminine).
In his book
Groove Theory: The Blues Foundation of Funk, Tony Bolden explores the physical, aural, and spiritual roots of funk music. Drawing connections from jazz, literature, and political movements and thought, Bolden makes the case that funk isn’t just about music, but about a larger feeling and language in Black music and culture. He covers not just the history of funk music, but also devotes some chapters to artists like Sly Stone, Betty Davis, and Chaka Khan, weaving in how race, commercial pressures, and gender played a role in their musical legacies. The undercurrent of funk and funkiness whether that’s defined as music, feeling, language, action, or simply a way a being rests in the blues, Bolden explains: “the blues and funk are not just musical forms; they are interrelated concepts.”
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA
Michael Hiltzik: Why I never ‘agree to disagree’ I just tell you when you’re wrong [Los Angeles Times :: BC-HILTZIK-DISAGREE-COLUMN:LA]
Is there a more weaselly dodge in the English language than the phrase “let’s agree to disagree”?
On the surface it’s an offer to set aside one’s differences in the name of civility. Most often, however, it’s a confession of defeat by someone attempting to wriggle out of a losing argument by abandoning the contest and asking for a draw.
That’s why I won’t “agree to disagree.” Sometimes I’ll merely disagree. And sometimes I’ll see off rivals with the observation that they’re wrong, that I’ve amply documented their error, and that their offer to “agree to disagree” is an implicit admission that their position is groundless, not to say dishonest.
Is there a more weaselly dodge in the English language than the phrase “let’s agree to disagree”?
On the surface it’s an offer to set aside one’s differences in the name of civility. Most often, however, it’s a confession of defeat by someone attempting to wriggle out of a losing argument by abandoning the contest and asking for a draw.
That’s why I won’t “agree to disagree.” Sometimes I’ll merely disagree. And sometimes I’ll see off rivals with the observation that they’re wrong, that I’ve amply documented their error, and that their offer to “agree to disagree” is an implicit admission that their position is groundless, not to say dishonest.
New York Review Books
If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.
Before you commit to reading William Gaddis’ two greatest novels, “JR” and “The Recognitions” recently reissued by New York Review Books with new introductions you need to get a few things straight. First of all, this isn’t going to be a fly-by-night quickie, some passing summer fling you’re going to leave behind, dog-eared and water-stained, in a cabin or resort. This has to be a long-term relationship or it won’t mean anything to either of you.