This is another example of the absurdity of political correctness and inclusivenes. Is there now a quota system? Must lists of bests in publishing include a certain number of women and persons of color? How absurd!
You will note that the politically correct destroyers of the Western canon have long been attacking the dead white man dominance in literature. Shame on all those dead white men! If we were to be properly contrite revisionists, we should push aside Shakespeare in favor of Aphra Behn, and almost certainly--if we look carefully enough, with an open mind to expanding the canon--we can find some more women and persons of color who can replace Milton, Dickens, Whitman, Hopkins, Joyce, Hemingway, Faulkner, and others.
There is nothing wrong with including women and persons of color, but it is nonsense to require their inclusion as if recognizing merit in literature is a function of social responsibility.
Well, that is enough huffing and puffing on the topic. I rather imagine my rant will be more than provocative enough for the occasion.
While I agree that the arts ought to be color-blind, etc., the blunt truth is that most people, including arts judges, are not. So it's always a valid question to ask what the judges' criteria were. Were they really color-blind, or did they have an unspoken, even unconscious, bias?
It's certainly not out of line to ask the question. Maybe the answer would be a good one, a true one, a valid one. Maybe there's a good reason, and maybe these really were the best works of the year, at least in this set of judge's minds.
And I could argue about the abiding subjectivity of judging lists such as this, but I'll let it slide, and just say: I’ve been on judging panels myself, for music composition, and sometimes the choices are close and difficult. You try to be objective, and quickly realize that you can’t be, not completely, never fully. You just do your best.
But it's never a bad question to ask judges what they were thinking of when they made their selections. And maybe it's good to keep an open mind about the resulting list, rather than over-react in the other direction. Like I said, I agree with the theory that the arts ought to be color-blind, but in real life they almost never are. That's not political correctness—i.e. the new bogeyman of the reactionary critic—but an honest realization of the limits of human attitudes, and of human failings.
This is another example of the absurdity of political correctness and inclusivenes. Is there now a quota system? Must lists of bests in publishing include a certain number of women and persons of color? How absurd!
ReplyDeleteYou will note that the politically correct destroyers of the Western canon have long been attacking the dead white man dominance in literature. Shame on all those dead white men! If we were to be properly contrite revisionists, we should push aside Shakespeare in favor of Aphra Behn, and almost certainly--if we look carefully enough, with an open mind to expanding the canon--we can find some more women and persons of color who can replace Milton, Dickens, Whitman, Hopkins, Joyce, Hemingway, Faulkner, and others.
There is nothing wrong with including women and persons of color, but it is nonsense to require their inclusion as if recognizing merit in literature is a function of social responsibility.
Well, that is enough huffing and puffing on the topic. I rather imagine my rant will be more than provocative enough for the occasion.
I agree with you, R/T. The sole criterion should be literary.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the arts ought to be color-blind, etc., the blunt truth is that most people, including arts judges, are not. So it's always a valid question to ask what the judges' criteria were. Were they really color-blind, or did they have an unspoken, even unconscious, bias?
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly not out of line to ask the question. Maybe the answer would be a good one, a true one, a valid one. Maybe there's a good reason, and maybe these really were the best works of the year, at least in this set of judge's minds.
And I could argue about the abiding subjectivity of judging lists such as this, but I'll let it slide, and just say: I’ve been on judging panels myself, for music composition, and sometimes the choices are close and difficult. You try to be objective, and quickly realize that you can’t be, not completely, never fully. You just do your best.
But it's never a bad question to ask judges what they were thinking of when they made their selections. And maybe it's good to keep an open mind about the resulting list, rather than over-react in the other direction. Like I said, I agree with the theory that the arts ought to be color-blind, but in real life they almost never are. That's not political correctness—i.e. the new bogeyman of the reactionary critic—but an honest realization of the limits of human attitudes, and of human failings.