This seems to be driven by commercial interest as much as anything.
It is not surprising that many of the people pushing this are contemporary authors, particularly YA authors, the very YA authors whose books would have the chance to bought en masse by school systems. There is a lot of money to be made in the selection of which books get read by schoolchildren.
Cluess wasn't just canceled for pure and noble social justice reasons; she was canceled because she was threatening the latest sales strategy in a struggling industry in which she is a competitor.
I think in general "cancellations" are so brutal in fields like fiction writing and academia because these fields are so competitive and there is a massive glut of particularly mediocre aspirants. "Social Justice" and "identity" have become a powerful tool to build a brand, develop a following, and knock off rivals, and to do so with the patina of moral superiority. We should not be surprised when people flagrantly exploit it. (And it should not surprise us that those who lack inherent "Identity" currency will try to create some for themselves; I think a lot of the growth in straight middle class white girls declaring themselves "non-binary", vaguely "queer," and #ActuallyAutistic is because they feel pressure to create for themselves the foundation for an #OwnVoices or Diversity platform, or as a post hoc defense of one after being "called out".)
Diversification of literature is good. We have an extraordinary body of excellent, complex, and worthy literature written by writers of color and writers from cultures or experiences that are not well represented in "The Canon" to integrate into education programs. Doing so would strengthen both education and "The Canon."
Regarding the W.E.B. DuBois quote and Dumas, readers may be interested to know, if you didn't already, that Dumas Pere's grandmother was an African slave by way of the Caribbean. His father was a "raised man" in Napoleon's army, eventually rising to general.
Regarding the article, we are seeing the same thing in live theatre. The movement in many quarters for 50/50 gender representation among playwrights means that male playwrights compete with Shakespeare, Chekhov, and all the rest, while female playwrights usually compete with...each other. So half our performed plays come from only one generation of authors.
Spot on. Diversification of available literature is ALWAYS a good thing, but doing so at the expense of preventing access to the classics is manifest error and will be seen twenty years from now as just another ridiculous intellectual fad.
Thank you. #DisruptTexts seems to reflect such a dull, plodding unimaginative, literal-minded approach to literature that it's almost laughable. Mr. Gradgrind is apparently alive and well in this cohort. Side note: Ralph Ellison also liked and admired the work of Faulkner. This is what happens when the proudly uncreative, those lacking entirely in nuance and subtlety, are in charge of literature.
It seems to me that the only way out of this increasingly hopeless situation is that the grassroots level. I don’t believe that the majority of parents have any idea what is going on as far as curriculums content and if they were to be made aware of it I am guessing they would be opposed. School superintendents and school board members serve at the behest of the electorate and can be dismissed. But first there has to be awareness of the issue
This hurts so much. I try to imagine my life without my relationship to Jane Austen’s mind. Occasionally I bump into a painful reference to colonized peoples. But Oh what I would have lost if she were kept from me because of that. The most closely observed minute observation of human character that I am aware of. This reminds me again that the most important principle of real growth is, “transcend and include.” Anything that does not follow this pattern is not growth, but regression. The language of this movement, as you relay it in the piece, is pure Maoism.
As with most controversies the truth/best course of action lies somewhere in between. I was late to the joys of reading. What may have helped me at a younger age (other than my parents and siblings being readers themselves) would have been teacher guidance according to my tastes and for that matter abilities. It’s less what we teach but how we teach.
Thank you for this piece. I don't understand why the objective is to destroy rather than build up. Why isn't there a choice for students? Shakespeare's work has lasted because he was a genius topped by no one ever with the possible exception of Bob Dylan. Are we going after Einstein next? I would not stand for this if I were a parent.
Isn't being able to acknowledge when both sides have a legitimate point without being called a traitor supposed to be one of the things that makes liberalism better than conservatism or leftism?
Reading should widen your world, broaden the scope of things you are capable of imagining, give you a window into the soul of someone unlike yourself. We deprive children of the chance to become fully human if we deprive them of the best that literature has to offer. We should absolutely look far and wide to every time and place for “the best”, but limiting such a search based on a political agenda would be a tragedy.
The fact that this was written by someone affiliated with the opinion side of the Wall Street Journal tells me all I need to know: another article that demonizes the mythical "woke left," and fights the culture wars yet again, by using exaggerated and cherry-picked examples. And not one single mention of the chilling effect of groupthink on the "unwoke right"-- the folks who believe QAnon or take whatever Pres. Trump, the Fox News commentators and the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal both literally and seriously.
I respect the fact that there are extremists on the left who want to focus on ONLY anti-racism or who want students to study ONLY "approved" texts. But how can we have this discussion without also discussing the extremists on the right who see everything through the prism of Christian nationalism or who believe that grievance and victimization are okay for folks on the right? (As they see it, folks on the left are "whiners"... whereas those on the their side have a cause worth fighting for-- after all, the folks on their side are trying to restore culture to the way it was in the "good old days.")
I am a media historian who teaches at a very liberal university and nobody has ever told me what to teach, or how to teach it. But as a professional, of course I want to have a diverse group of readings. This should not be controversial. However, I also want to avoid "presentism"-- retroactively applying the standards of today to folks from, let's say, 100 years ago. I can teach what people believed in previous times without necessarily agreeing. But in order to actually teach critical thinking, one needs to compare and contrast, and one also needs some context-- such as WHY did people believe X, did anyone challenge that dominant belief, what happened, what changed, and how did we get to where we are today.
I find it profoundly disappointing that we'd be debating yet another culture war issue without looking at the history of white nationalism and white Christian victimization culture, which has invaded and taken over conservative talk radio and right-wing pro-Trump commentary programs on TV and online. I am fine about disagreeing on how many "dead white men" should be taught, but this piece is a distraction, yet another way for my conservative friends to demonize and mock the left for the very worthy goal of creating a more just and equal society. By making it seem as if the "woke extremists" are taking over (a common discourse on the right), the author can once again feel satisfied that her side would never do such a thing. Except... they would. And on January 6th, they did.
To Kill a Mockingbird is an extremely important book that teaches children about the inequality black people faced at this time and place in America. I struggle to name a text that is more influential in educating us on the mistaken ideas of the past. Going away from To Kill a Mockingbird seems like a great way to have a MORE racist society, not less. I'm deeply disappointed.
Thank you Ms. Cox Gurdon. The same thing is happening in my field documentary, where recently our preeminent industry magazine published an article titled "Canons Must Fall". In the article the author equated the racial exclusivity of the traditional documentary canon as akin to genocide. And because she knew it would sound preposterous to most she went out of her way to say the comparison was not an "exaggeration but rooted in fact". What's more, the industry outpouring of support for the article with little apparent pushback was disconcerting. I am fully supportive of expanding the canon, or not even having one (I am unsure of how the canon is formed other than by popular opinion anyway) as there are so many great films that have been overlooked by our gatekeepers. I just have little tolerance for the ever in vogue idea that works made by white people are in and of themselves harmful to non-whites. As a non-white voracious consumer of art and literature myself I can say affirmatively that John Steinbeck has done more good than bad. Thank you for articulating what is going on with #DisruptTexts so very well.
There's at least two issues at play here: the relevance of the traditional canon and the book-burning inclinations of The Woken. The latter is not interested in art or the broad humanistic reasons for teaching the canon. Zombie fashion, they simply attack everyone and everything that doesn't fit their narrow world view. They need to be opposed, intellectually. Unfortunately for the Rational Resistance, the traditional canon may not be a hill fit to die on. Kids have entire industries now that that tell them stories they can relate to. It's difficult to get an adult interested in Shakespeare or Homer, much less a child. I personally find Homer and many famous works unendurable. A taste for Shakespeare required a major effort on my part, while in my mid-twenties, to acquire.
This seems to be driven by commercial interest as much as anything.
It is not surprising that many of the people pushing this are contemporary authors, particularly YA authors, the very YA authors whose books would have the chance to bought en masse by school systems. There is a lot of money to be made in the selection of which books get read by schoolchildren.
Cluess wasn't just canceled for pure and noble social justice reasons; she was canceled because she was threatening the latest sales strategy in a struggling industry in which she is a competitor.
I think in general "cancellations" are so brutal in fields like fiction writing and academia because these fields are so competitive and there is a massive glut of particularly mediocre aspirants. "Social Justice" and "identity" have become a powerful tool to build a brand, develop a following, and knock off rivals, and to do so with the patina of moral superiority. We should not be surprised when people flagrantly exploit it. (And it should not surprise us that those who lack inherent "Identity" currency will try to create some for themselves; I think a lot of the growth in straight middle class white girls declaring themselves "non-binary", vaguely "queer," and #ActuallyAutistic is because they feel pressure to create for themselves the foundation for an #OwnVoices or Diversity platform, or as a post hoc defense of one after being "called out".)
Diversification of literature is good. We have an extraordinary body of excellent, complex, and worthy literature written by writers of color and writers from cultures or experiences that are not well represented in "The Canon" to integrate into education programs. Doing so would strengthen both education and "The Canon."
But this movement is not that.
Regarding the W.E.B. DuBois quote and Dumas, readers may be interested to know, if you didn't already, that Dumas Pere's grandmother was an African slave by way of the Caribbean. His father was a "raised man" in Napoleon's army, eventually rising to general.
Regarding the article, we are seeing the same thing in live theatre. The movement in many quarters for 50/50 gender representation among playwrights means that male playwrights compete with Shakespeare, Chekhov, and all the rest, while female playwrights usually compete with...each other. So half our performed plays come from only one generation of authors.
Spot on. Diversification of available literature is ALWAYS a good thing, but doing so at the expense of preventing access to the classics is manifest error and will be seen twenty years from now as just another ridiculous intellectual fad.
Thank you. #DisruptTexts seems to reflect such a dull, plodding unimaginative, literal-minded approach to literature that it's almost laughable. Mr. Gradgrind is apparently alive and well in this cohort. Side note: Ralph Ellison also liked and admired the work of Faulkner. This is what happens when the proudly uncreative, those lacking entirely in nuance and subtlety, are in charge of literature.
It seems to me that the only way out of this increasingly hopeless situation is that the grassroots level. I don’t believe that the majority of parents have any idea what is going on as far as curriculums content and if they were to be made aware of it I am guessing they would be opposed. School superintendents and school board members serve at the behest of the electorate and can be dismissed. But first there has to be awareness of the issue
Michael Niemanjust now
This hurts so much. I try to imagine my life without my relationship to Jane Austen’s mind. Occasionally I bump into a painful reference to colonized peoples. But Oh what I would have lost if she were kept from me because of that. The most closely observed minute observation of human character that I am aware of. This reminds me again that the most important principle of real growth is, “transcend and include.” Anything that does not follow this pattern is not growth, but regression. The language of this movement, as you relay it in the piece, is pure Maoism.
As with most controversies the truth/best course of action lies somewhere in between. I was late to the joys of reading. What may have helped me at a younger age (other than my parents and siblings being readers themselves) would have been teacher guidance according to my tastes and for that matter abilities. It’s less what we teach but how we teach.
This is ludicrous. There was no one more of an equal opportunity creator of villainy in the English language than William Shakespeare.
Male, Female, King, Queen, Prince, Knave, Tart, Black, White, Son, Daughter, Wizard, Sprite, Uncle, Mom, Brother, Nephew, Sister, actor...friggin’ everybody got into the act of being deliciously treacherous.
Thank you for this piece. I don't understand why the objective is to destroy rather than build up. Why isn't there a choice for students? Shakespeare's work has lasted because he was a genius topped by no one ever with the possible exception of Bob Dylan. Are we going after Einstein next? I would not stand for this if I were a parent.
Isn't being able to acknowledge when both sides have a legitimate point without being called a traitor supposed to be one of the things that makes liberalism better than conservatism or leftism?
Reading should widen your world, broaden the scope of things you are capable of imagining, give you a window into the soul of someone unlike yourself. We deprive children of the chance to become fully human if we deprive them of the best that literature has to offer. We should absolutely look far and wide to every time and place for “the best”, but limiting such a search based on a political agenda would be a tragedy.
The fact that this was written by someone affiliated with the opinion side of the Wall Street Journal tells me all I need to know: another article that demonizes the mythical "woke left," and fights the culture wars yet again, by using exaggerated and cherry-picked examples. And not one single mention of the chilling effect of groupthink on the "unwoke right"-- the folks who believe QAnon or take whatever Pres. Trump, the Fox News commentators and the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal both literally and seriously.
I respect the fact that there are extremists on the left who want to focus on ONLY anti-racism or who want students to study ONLY "approved" texts. But how can we have this discussion without also discussing the extremists on the right who see everything through the prism of Christian nationalism or who believe that grievance and victimization are okay for folks on the right? (As they see it, folks on the left are "whiners"... whereas those on the their side have a cause worth fighting for-- after all, the folks on their side are trying to restore culture to the way it was in the "good old days.")
I am a media historian who teaches at a very liberal university and nobody has ever told me what to teach, or how to teach it. But as a professional, of course I want to have a diverse group of readings. This should not be controversial. However, I also want to avoid "presentism"-- retroactively applying the standards of today to folks from, let's say, 100 years ago. I can teach what people believed in previous times without necessarily agreeing. But in order to actually teach critical thinking, one needs to compare and contrast, and one also needs some context-- such as WHY did people believe X, did anyone challenge that dominant belief, what happened, what changed, and how did we get to where we are today.
I find it profoundly disappointing that we'd be debating yet another culture war issue without looking at the history of white nationalism and white Christian victimization culture, which has invaded and taken over conservative talk radio and right-wing pro-Trump commentary programs on TV and online. I am fine about disagreeing on how many "dead white men" should be taught, but this piece is a distraction, yet another way for my conservative friends to demonize and mock the left for the very worthy goal of creating a more just and equal society. By making it seem as if the "woke extremists" are taking over (a common discourse on the right), the author can once again feel satisfied that her side would never do such a thing. Except... they would. And on January 6th, they did.
To Kill a Mockingbird is an extremely important book that teaches children about the inequality black people faced at this time and place in America. I struggle to name a text that is more influential in educating us on the mistaken ideas of the past. Going away from To Kill a Mockingbird seems like a great way to have a MORE racist society, not less. I'm deeply disappointed.
Thank you Ms. Cox Gurdon. The same thing is happening in my field documentary, where recently our preeminent industry magazine published an article titled "Canons Must Fall". In the article the author equated the racial exclusivity of the traditional documentary canon as akin to genocide. And because she knew it would sound preposterous to most she went out of her way to say the comparison was not an "exaggeration but rooted in fact". What's more, the industry outpouring of support for the article with little apparent pushback was disconcerting. I am fully supportive of expanding the canon, or not even having one (I am unsure of how the canon is formed other than by popular opinion anyway) as there are so many great films that have been overlooked by our gatekeepers. I just have little tolerance for the ever in vogue idea that works made by white people are in and of themselves harmful to non-whites. As a non-white voracious consumer of art and literature myself I can say affirmatively that John Steinbeck has done more good than bad. Thank you for articulating what is going on with #DisruptTexts so very well.
There's at least two issues at play here: the relevance of the traditional canon and the book-burning inclinations of The Woken. The latter is not interested in art or the broad humanistic reasons for teaching the canon. Zombie fashion, they simply attack everyone and everything that doesn't fit their narrow world view. They need to be opposed, intellectually. Unfortunately for the Rational Resistance, the traditional canon may not be a hill fit to die on. Kids have entire industries now that that tell them stories they can relate to. It's difficult to get an adult interested in Shakespeare or Homer, much less a child. I personally find Homer and many famous works unendurable. A taste for Shakespeare required a major effort on my part, while in my mid-twenties, to acquire.
Talking about the important matters of the day I see. Still nothing l the 6th. On my way to cancel my subscription.