By Carolyn Kellog - The Los Angeles Times - January 23, 2010

The National Book Critics Circle announced the finalists for its 2009 awards in New York today. Author Elizabeth Strout, a 2008 finalist, announced the finalists at Housing Works Bookstore Cafe. This year's recipient of the Ivan Sandrof Lifetime Achievement Award is prolific author Joyce Carol Oates.
Fiction Finalists:
Bonnie Jo Campbell, "American Salvage" (Wayne State University Press)
Marlon James, "The Book of Night Women" (Riverhead)
Michelle Huneven, "Blame" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux)
Hilary Mantel, "Wolf Hall" (Holt)
Jayne Anne Phillips, "Lark and Termite" (Knopf)

Nonfiction Finalists:
Wendy Doniger, "The Hindus: An Alternative History" (Penguin Press)
Greg Grandin, "Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City" (Metropolitan Books)
Richard Holmes, "The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science" (Pantheon)
Tracy Kidder, "Strength in What Remains" (Random House)
William T. Vollmann, "Imperial" (Viking)

Biography Finalists:
Blake Bailey, "Cheever: A Life" (Knopf)
Brad Gooch, "Flannery: A Life of Flannery O'Connor" (Little, Brown)
Benjamin Moser, "Why This World: A Biography of Clarice Lispector" (Oxford University Press)
Stanislao G. Pugliese, "Bitter Spring: A Life of Ignazio Silone" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux)
Martha A. Sandweiss, "Passing Strange: A Gilded Age Tale of Love and Deception Across the Color Line" (Penguin Press)

Autobiography Finalists:
Diana Athill, "Somewhere Towards the End" (Norton)
Debra Gwartney, "Live Through This: A Mother's Memoir of Runaway Daughters and Reclaimed Love" (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)
Mary Karr, "Lit" (Harper)
Kati Marton, "Enemies of the People: My Family's Journey to America" (Simon & Schuster)
Edmund White, "City Boy" (Bloomsbury)

Criticism Finalists:
Eula Biss, "Notes From No Man's Land: American Essays" (Graywolf Press)
Stephen Burt, "Close Calls with Nonsense: Reading New Poetry" (Graywolf Press)
Morris Dickstein, "Dancing in the Dark: A Cultural History of the Great Depression" (Norton)
David Hajdu, "Heroes and Villains: Essays on Music, Movies, Comics, and Culture" (Da Capo Press)
Greg Milner, "Perfecting Sound Forever: An Aural History of Recorded Music" (Faber)

Poetry Finalists:
Rae Armantrout, "Versed" (Wesleyan)
Louise Glück, "A Village Life" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux)
D.A. Powell, "Chronic" (Graywolf Press)
Eleanor Ross Taylor, "Captive Voices: New and Selected Poems, 1960-2008" (Louisiana State University Press)
Rachel Zucker, "Museum of Accidents" (Wave Books)

Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing: Joan Acocella
Finalists: Michael Antman, William Deresiewicz, Donna Seaman, Wendy Smith

The awards will be announced in March.

The following is Public Domain and remains as interesting today as when it was printed in 1914, I believe. I hope you will find it so. Please feel free to give feedback on this and other information you find on this blog.

We all began to collect books for a wide variety of reasons. Hopefully not for the reasons outlined at the beginning of this article... but whatever the reason, the love of books and reading unites us all. Enjoy the article!

THE AIM

At the beginning a misconception must be removed from the path. Many people, if not most, look on literary taste as an elegant accomplishment, by acquiring which they will complete themselves, and make themselves finally fit as members of a correct society. They are secretly ashamed of their ignorance of literature, in the same way as they would be ashamed of their ignorance of etiquette at a high entertainment, or of their inability to ride a horse if suddenly called upon to do so. There are certain things that a man ought to know, or to know about, and literature is one of them: such is their idea. They have learnt to dress themselves with propriety, and to behave with propriety on all occasions; they are fairly "up" in the questions of the day; by industry and enterprise they are succeeding in their vocations; it behoves them, then, not to forget that an acquaintance with literature is an indispensable part of a self-respecting man's personal baggage. Painting doesn't matter; music doesn't matter very much. But "everyone is supposed to know" about literature. Then, literature is such a charming distraction! Literary taste thus serves two purposes: as a certificate of correct culture and as a private pastime. A young professor of mathematics, immense at mathematics and games, dangerous at chess, capable of Haydn on the violin, once said to me, after listening to some chat on books, "Yes, I must take up literature." As though saying: "I was rather forgetting literature. However, I've polished off all these other things. I'll have a shy at literature now."

This attitude, or any attitude which resembles it, is wrong. To him who really comprehends what literature is, and what the function of literature is, this attitude is simply ludicrous. It is also fatal to the formation of literary taste. People who regard literary taste simply as an accomplishment, and literature simply as a distraction, will never truly succeed either in acquiring the accomplishment or in using it half-acquired as a distraction; though the one is the most perfect of distractions, and though the other is unsurpassed by any other accomplishment in elegance or in power to impress the universal snobbery of civilised mankind.
Literature, instead of being an accessory, is the fundamental *sine qua non* of complete living. I am extremely anxious to avoid rhetorical exaggerations. I do not think I am guilty of one in asserting that he who has not been "presented to the freedom" of literature has not wakened up out of his prenatal sleep. He is merely not born. He can't see; he can't hear; he can't feel, in any full sense. He can only eat his dinner. What more than anything else annoys people who know the true function of literature, and have profited thereby, is the spectacle of so many thousands of individuals going about under the delusion that they are alive, when, as a fact,
they are no nearer being alive than a bear in winter.

I will tell you what literature is! No--I only wish I could. But I can't. No one can. Gleams can be thrown on the secret, inklings given, but no more. I will try to give you an inkling. And, to do so, I will take you back into your own history, or forward into it. That evening when you went for a walk with your faithful friend, the friend from whom you hid nothing-- or almost nothing...! You were, in truth, somewhat inclined to hide from him the particular matter which monopolised your mind
that evening, but somehow you contrived to get on to it, drawn by an overpowering fascination. And as your faithful friend was sympathetic and discreet, and flattered you by a respectful curiosity, you proceeded further and further into the said matter,
growing more and more confidential, until at last you cried out, in a terrific whisper: "My boy, she is simply miraculous!" At that moment you were in the domain of literature.

Let me explain. Of course, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, she was not miraculous. Your faithful friend had never noticed that she was miraculous, nor had about forty thousand other fairly keen observers. She was just a girl. Troy had not been burnt for her. A girl cannot be called a miracle. If a girl is to be called a miracle, then you might call pretty nearly anything a miracle.... That is just it: you might. You can. You ought. Amid all the miracles of the universe you had just wakened up to one. You were full of your discovery. You were under a divine impulsion to impart that discovery. You had a strong sense of the marvellous beauty of something, and you had to share it. You were in a passion about something, and you had to vent yourself on somebody. You were drawn towards the whole of the rest of the human race. Mark the effect of your mood and utterance on your faithful friend. He knew that she was not a miracle. No other person could have
made him believe that she was a miracle. But you, by the force and sincerity of your own vision of her, and by the fervour of your desire to make him participate in your vision, did for quite a long time cause him to feel that he had been blind to the miracle of that girl.

You were producing literature. You were alive. Your eyes were unlidded, your ears were unstopped, to some part of the beauty and the strangeness of the world; and a strong instinct within you forced you to tell someone. It was not enough for you that you saw and heard. Others had to see and hear. Others had to be wakened up.
And they were! It is quite possible--I am not quite sure-- that your faithful friend the very next day, or the next month, looked at some other girl, and suddenly saw that she, too, was miraculous! The influence of literature!

The makers of literature are those who have seen and felt the miraculous interestingness of the universe. And the greatest makers of literature are those whose vision has been the widest, and whose feeling has been the most intense. Your own fragment of insight was accidental, and perhaps temporary. *Their* lives are one long ecstasy of denying that the world is a dull place. Is it nothing to you
to learn to understand that the world is not a dull place? Is it nothing to you to be led out of the tunnel on to the hill-side, to have all your senses quickened, to be invigorated by the true savour of life, to feel your heart beating under that correct necktie of yours? These makers of literature render you their equals.

The aim of literary study is not to amuse the hours of leisure; it is to awake oneself, it is to be alive, to intensify one's capacity for pleasure, for sympathy, and for comprehension. It is not to affect one hour, but twenty-four hours. It is to change utterly one's relations with the world. An understanding appreciation of literature means an understanding appreciation of the world, and it means nothing else. Not isolated and unconnected parts of life, but all of life, brought together and correlated in a synthetic map! The spirit of literature is unifying; it joins the candle and the star, and by the magic of an image shows that the beauty of the greater is in the less. And, not content with the disclosure of beauty and the bringing together
of all things whatever within its focus, it enforces a moral wisdom by the tracing everywhere of cause and effect. It consoles doubly-- by the revelation of unsuspected loveliness, and by the proof that our lot is the common lot. It is the supreme cry of the discoverer, offering sympathy and asking for it in a single gesture. In attending a University Extension Lecture on the sources of Shakespeare's plots, or in studying the researches of George Saintsbury into the origins of English prosody, or in weighing the evidence for and against the assertion that Rousseau was a scoundrel, one is apt to forget what literature really is and is for. It is well to remind ourselves that literature is first and last a means of life, and that the enterprise of forming one's literary taste is an enterprise of learning how best to use this means of life. People who don't want to live, people who would sooner hibernate than feel intensely, will be wise to eschew literature. They had better, to quote from the finest passage in a fine poem, "sit around and eat blackberries." The sight of a "common bush afire with God" might upset their nerves.