I think the reason why most ppl are not happy with literary “classics” in high school is that they only study the works of racist and sexist western white men… Not that they’re lazy and misinformed
Idk what to say, I am very sorry that your school’s lit program sucked so much that you came out of lit class thinking this kind of stuff. Just remember shitting on Dumas doesn’t make you edgy or right, just painfully hard to listen to and a little more ignorant about the world around you
also if you shit on dumas you’re shitting on a person of colour who spoke and wrote about racism
Criticizing classics =/= shitting singularly on Dumas, and he’s one example out of a sea of classics that are criticized for valid reasons. Novels/plays/etc are not born classics, they are MADE INTO classics–mostly by white rich British dudes, historically.
at which point in this conversation did I say that classics should not be criticised, or that they’ve been made into classics by a diverse and impartial group of literature experts?
Oh god sorry but I have to get into this hoping i don’t lose the patience to type it on mobile
A) western lit is made of white dudes’/ladies’ books because most people in europe were white and most literate europe in the us were white until a certain point it’s no conspiracy theory
A1) which does not mean that there aren’t classics written by non white people in western and us lit - I mean does ralph ellison mean anything to you just to mention one, never mind all the neocolonialist lit that IS considered worthy to be taught in school. Idk salman rushdie is english lit and he’s hardly write. Last i checked toni morrison won a nobel. Neocolonialist lit is english lit bro and in europe most people are white so that’s what happens
B) in school they have to teach you your country’s lit and history first then the others. I did english lit during english class, italian lit during italian class and i read a few french and russian classics for school because we were studying the modern novel. Now, in japan they probably did not study the divine comedy or i promessi sposi or les mis or brothers karamazov, in china they probably do chinese lit and maybe some japanese and so on. I didn’t do any japanese or chinese lit in school but we could barely cover ours. Like you cannot expect mandatory school to cover EVERYTHING, which is why ebooks and libraries exist. You wanna read kawabata’s books? You can, you don’t need to study them in school.
C) lit history is not a conspiracy theory. What happens is that a lot of people write a lot of books. Out of idk two thousand, maybe fifty are not trash, ten are GOOD, one has something new to say either because of the plot or the style or something and sets a trend that other people follow until someone else writs something that has new stuff to say about it. Ie: robinson crusoe is the umpteenth variation of ulysses stranded on the island. Except that the structure is new GUESS WHAT defoe invented the modern novel so it IS an important book because ALL subsequent brit novels drew themes from it and structured it that way. Treasure Island wouldn’t have happened without Robinson but it’s original enough that it set a trend for most other adventure novels. Verne’s books probably would have been different without it, but Stevenson didn’t have all the pre-scifi stuff. Or idk the murders of the rue morgue by Poe started the whole detective genre but sherlock holmes is way more famous because conan doyle improved that model and then everyone copied from him, except that then Raymond Chandler tries it and he comes up with noir and everyone and their children write noir books. Horror lit wouldn’t exist without Poe but not even without Lovecraft, and it’s why both are on lit books and Stephen King, who as a writer i like more, is not on most english lits and if he is it’s not because he’s groundbreaking. And I’m not getting into tolkien, fantasy and old british lit or we’ll be done tomorrow. The point is that books are important insofar as they say something new and set trends in literature and that’s hardly something controlled by rich white english men. This shit happens naturally and based on how successful a model is.
D) can we quit with the rich white men myth? Dickens wrote as much as he did bc he was paid by the word and he had idk more than five kids to feed. Most *classic* european writers who were male were dirt poor or at most middle class and if they weren’t they still had issues ie dostoevsky was depressed, was imprisoned for political reasons, spent more than ten years in Syberia doing hard labor and he also had epylepsy. Most of the men writers were starving or barely making ends and actually the women were the ones most better off because they were middle class or noble, couldnt’t work and wrote novels which then they were forced to publish under male names most of the time. Like, saying that western classic lit was written by rich white men is so fucking ignorant i cannot even.
D1) btw most rich white men did NOT like what said classic writers published. Idk. Ever heard of people censoring huck finn? And not because of the n word bro.
E) obviously you can criticize the plot or problematic elements but books are important IN SPITE of it. I think robinson crusoe is boring af when it’s about robinson being a precapitalist on the island and that it’s insufferable when he starts teaching friday sunday school never mind the colonialist vibes. I still have to teach it in school because it was the beginning of english modern novel regardless of how much I like its content.
F) in these cases something called ‘separating content from historical importance’ exists. Last example which is not lit because I have a fanfic to write and I’m tired of repeating this all the time: no movie today would exist without this other movie named birth of a nation which was shot in 1915 and whose director invented 80% of the camerawork used in subsequent film from then to today. Birth of a nation is technically a damned good movie fo having been shot in 1915, except that it’s basically a love anthem to the KKK and it was so racist people thought it was racist and tasteless in 1915 when black people couldn’t even vote. Tldr: the plot is utter shit, but the technique was so influential that idk KUROSAWA was inspired by it. Kurosawa is Japanese. Does that make the plot any less shit? No. Does that mean that movie isn’t important and shouldn’t be shown in film school if you wanna be a director or an editor? Tough luck, you have to stomach it because in arts/humanistic subjects you have to know what came before you unless you want to be terrible at your job. Or mediocre, I suppose.
Now this post is way too long so i am going to cut it here but do we all realize that reducing english/western lit to 'lol rich white men schools conspired to not make us learn about other cultures’ is complete bullshit? Thanks everyone.
Hey, I saw this and I thought, Oh man. I better chime in. I’m an English literature grad with a wide array of courses under my belt. I’ve taught and tutored university level English lit for years. I’m also just passionate as hell about it. So I know that, unfortunately, a lot of what you’ve written is factually wrong. The opinion-based stuff is also, well... not well-supported in the broader lit community. It’s not a big deal to be wrong, so I’m hoping that me pointing that out won’t close you (and others reading this) off to learning some new info about lit. The best way to learn about this is to study it at university but let me shed some light--just be aware that this conversation is so much bigger than this tumblr post. :)
Read this when you have a curious mind and time for something super long. If nothing else, read #2 at the bottom!
You don’t mention the canon; I will. This is the literary canon.
A) That boils down to “poc aren’t in the canon b/c they didn’t write in the past,” and, well--that’s wrong. I can see you wanting to laugh off exclusionary practices toward poc creators as some modern SJW PC agenda conspiracy theory, and all that does is leave me curious as to why you find it so laughable that European poc would have created something worth making timeless. Firstly, it’s not just Europeans of color who had low levels of education; all of Europe had low levels of education. That said, it’s not as if no creative poc were educated and literate; your assertion is factually incorrect. Many Europeans of color were incredibly literate. Secondly, I think you need to remember that literature is not solely made up of English standard structured novels that require English standard literacy; there are plays, oral histories, oral stories, letters, songs, legends, poems, etc. It’s a no-brainer that Western poc created amazing works throughout time. There are many culturally rich, fascinating, beautiful, intelligent, thought-provoking, relatable texts that are literature but excluded from the Western canon for a myriad of reasons. In terms of sheer numbers, yes: there were fewer creators who were non-white by their nation’s standard, so it’s not as if anyone expects creators of color to sweep the Western canon--but the near complete absence of their work is no accident. The canon is selected, not naturally made. Ask yourself why nearly no creations from poc--out of the vast sea of available ballads, oral histories, legends, etc--were selected. I think you know the answer. (Psst! Racism & xenophobia.)
B) Unfortunately for you, I attended a Japanese high school, so I can call BS on your completely fabricated account of East Asian education. At least mostly. It’s true that in Japan (and other East Asian countries) they have their own literary canon, some of which I studied. To keep a culture alive, studying influential works of the culture only makes sense! When people criticize the Western canon, it’s not saying, “Let’s stop learning about our cultures and learn about foreign ones instead.” I have to take your words down in two parts. B-1) Yes, Japan and other East Asian nations read works from the Western canon, partly out of interest and partly out of wordliness. Also, ever heard of British imperialism? American occupation? OK, connect the dots. Interesting how we have painfully limited exposure to East Asian nations’ work despite many European nations occupying (and murdering ppl in) those nations. Almost like we should study that, maybe in lit form, maybe bc there’s a breadth of lit about that, hmmm... But imma move on. B-2) Let’s use China for an example. The nation of China has more cultural diversity inside it than the entirety of Europe. This isn’t something most Westerners realize or readily believe. When Chinese people are educated on their lit canon, there are certain works which are favored and other works (from marginalized cultures within China) that get snubbed. I’m pointing this out b/c it’s similar to what Europe does toward marginalized cultures within Europe. When people want to expand the Western lit canon, they want to see more of the marginalized community’s works within Europe, not just works form outside Europe. But considering how involved Europe is globally, non-European works fit plenty into our history. You divide it up like you study English works in English, Italian works in Italian--alright, cool. That’s good. Is there seriously no more room for anything else in your mind? Imma tell you current leaders in education disagree with you. It’s not about erasing what young people learn; it’s about expanding it and making it more relevant to our progressive, socially aware, global community. Young people are smart and have such curious, open minds. Honestly, it’s worked out great for me in every class I’ve ever taught. And these non-canon works--which might not receive as much light as, say, Shakespeare--are influential as hell on my students.
C) Oh, no! History is so much bigger than you’re acknowledging here! You’re only seeing what you’ve already been educated on, and you’re not recognizing the vast realms you’ve never been exposed to. Seriously! This is the kind of thing a kid would say in a class I’d be teaching, and I’d sit there and roast them (politely--but a definite roast). You’re making some good points, though, to be sure! :) Yes, different works inform each other, and yes, different works become culturally relevant/iconic, so they’re important to teach people about. I’m super glad you know that b/c it’s why Shakespeare is even around! He was grossly unoriginal in his time and considered literal fucking garbage. His plays were shit shows of his time, full of fart and penis jokes. But he was influential, and eventually the elite ppl who snubbed him before were forced to watch his work later. Over time, he became such a cultural icon that it doesn’t matter that his works weren’t orginal b/c they inspired so many new things after him. Now, what you’re not doing here is asking yourself how works of lit get the attention necessary to become influential. Let me tell you something--it’s not a natural process at all. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I also want to cut past the crap and be real: saying it happens naturally is super, super naive. Sometimes, sometimes, on very rare occasions, we have a work that breaks through standard and reaches influential status without gaining attention from elite white men first. But, historically, most works only became influential after being elevated by the white elite. In fact, many works shared down to modern times were works the elite studied exclusively, and they were not works that the common folk would even bother with. It was a very incestuous community; the elite read the works they elevated, and then they wrote works influenced by that, and then the next round of elite read that work, wrote work influenced by that, etc. It was a cycle of the elite being snobby and trying to show off to each other. John Milton is a famous example of this. That’s not to say that’s the only way lit worked, but it’s a huge and important aspect of lit history--it’s not a conspiracy theory! I’m confused by that accusation, actually. This is documented history that we learn in the first few courses of a lit major. (By the way, Stephen King will most definitely join the “accepted lit” canon one day, tbh. He probably just has to die first, ha! That’s the running joke about the canon: lots of dead men. Similar joke in the art community, like with Van Gogh. haha!)
D) Errr, the argument has never been “only rich white men write,” it’s always been “rich white men determine the majority of what will be considered literature and what won’t be” (and they “coincidentally” tend to select narratives that affirm the artistic elite’s ideals). Sometimes young folk get that confused, and I don’t blame them; it’s tiring as hell to constantly read works by white males. Really, I don’t blame people for being tired about that. (Being able to name a few famous writers who were poor or Black or female doesn’t change that the vast majority of the canon is white males, by the way.) But in terms of the bigger conversation about classics? People are mad about who gets a say in what’s worthwhile literature. Ever stopped to think about how Huck Finn joined what is considered accepted lit? (Hint: ivory tower white male academics!) I’m glad it’s here--I’m just trying to get y’all to think about the process that goes into this! Again, it’s not some artistic, beautiful natural process birthed from the minds of the common folk; that’s soo fucking rare (although thankfully more common now).
E) I wholeheartedly agree with this point! Books are very important despite problematic elements within! That’s the whole point in reading shitty sexist lit, etc--analyzing the shit out of it! Taming of the Shrew? What the fuck! Heart of Darkness? Doubly what the FUCK! I’m glad I read both, and I’d love to teach both. But am I only going to expose people to these problems through narratives written like this, or am I going to also include works that explore the issues through the minds of women, ppl from the Congo, etc? Hopefully the latter if I want to be a decent teacher!
F) I don’t have much to say to this. All that seems pretty obvious and it only supports the “expand the classics” side. I’m glad you’re picking up on how the plot might be shit in something but the technique is influential. This is how the art community works. We should be welcoming more and more into our minds rather than closing ourselves off and missing something great.
So, finally I have three things to add that didn’t come up in that novel I just wrote you:
- The field of English study was intentionally made. There’s a really awesome essay about this that I can’t for the life of me find online, damn me! The essay outlines how English lit was something almost exclusively for the elite, how different works were adopted to be edgy or deep, how the community was quite incestuous about lit, etc--and then, as times changed, the common folk were becoming more educated and more literate than they ever were, but they were getting dirt wages. Literally, I fucking kid you not, literal historic fact, some higher ups were like, “if we let them feel elite, they’ll calm the shit down--let’s give them some Chaucer to read.” The birth of what eventually became the now-compulsory study of lit! Basically, this shit is decided by people, and I’m pointing that out b/c this shit is not always some pure and natural process like y’all might wanna believe. (I’ve embellished a bit so it sounds a tad fantastical, but the essay I can’t find is much more dry and serious about it. If you focus on lit at university, I guarantee you’ll read that essay! When I find it, I’ll come back and add the link to this post. One of y’all will know which one I mean, I’m sure!)
- The standard for what is “good literature” is shit. That’s the straightforward way to say it! What that means is that it is classist, sexist, racist, homophobic, and so on and so forth--I’ll explain! In the link I provided for “Western canon,” it describes it as the lit that has been “traditionally accepted by Western scholars.” I’ve touched on this a few times: throughout history, there’s been a group of mostly white, mostly male scholars determining what’s most important and influential. They’re playing boss. Now, that’s all rad and good and shit, we got some good shit out of that, but it’s only their perspectives, and Western culture is not just something they experience. It’s way more expansive. The West is so diverse, not just in terms of nations but also marginalized communities like Romani people, diaspora Jews, Black French people, Pakistani Brits, historic tribes, etc. All of these communities and cultures exist and matter--they were just ignored by Western canon b/c of literal actual racism etc. The standard for deciding what is good lit was formed out of what topics felt relevant to the white scholars, language they recognized as like their own and elite (rather than common), etc. There might be a highly influential and important work of writing in one community, but the white elite folk turned their back to it b/c the dialect of English didn’t match their own or the topic was too feminine or it explored a gay relationship, and this happened many, many, many times! This is a historical fact. Remember, culture and art are not bound by the rules of standardized English (and your own speech shouldn’t be, either). Grammar and usage rules are meant to describe language not prescribe language. So, if a dialect of French or English or whatever has non-standard usage, snubbing it is an act of elite and unnecessary snobbery that unfairly targets poor people/poc; it is not a legitimate criticism of writing, cultural relevance, creativity, or potential influence the work may have on any group. As a result, the Western canon does not reflect the full breadth of culturally important and “good” lit; it’s a very limited view of our world, and so it must be expanded. Expanding it naturally requires us to drop a lot of the elitist snobbery that has racist and sexist standards turning away cultural important works simply b/c they’re too girly, written in AAVE, comma spliced to hell, full of tropes, describing girls having sex together, etc. Thankfully, there have been people demanding this shift for decades, and their voices are being heard. This is the natural result of our society becoming more global and losing the ability to exclude poc, women, trans people, etc from universities--from the convo about lit and cultural importance. That’s how we end up with amazing people like Toni Morrison, Haruki Murakami, and Chimimanda Ngozi Adichie getting the recognition they deserve.
- A few times during this convo, I noticed y’all kinda being play-pretend elite folk, raising your noses up and looking down on Cassandra Clare and other lit like hers. I really advise against that--mostly because you look like assholes but also because that kind of attitude has no place in the lit community. Books like Harry Potter, Twilight, etc--they’re not well-respected as “elite literature” but they’re vastly more influential on most of our culture than works of the Western canon like, say, Paradise Lost. If lit education is to explore what is important and influential (as y’all correctly and repeatedly acknowledge), it is our obligation to take lit like that and have students analyze it, criticize it, and engage with it. Good lit programs do not shy away from exploring YA lit and other under-respected lit genres--they take what students know and show them how to be active readers, critical thinkers, and creative writers.
I also want to remind people to be humble and curious. There is so much knowledge that each of us individually will lack. I would never profess to be an authority on economics or political science; however, I am confident in my knowledge of English lit, and I’m always wanting more. I want to encourage people who are not educated on English lit to be curious about what they can learn rather than assuming they are already experts. I’m not trying to shame or embarrass you--I just want you to want to learn this.
-J
