In the previous post, I wrote about one aspect of a New York Times interview of black American author Alice Walker, whose most highly regarded book, "The Color Purple," while controversial, is generally considered solidly within the American literary canon -- along with titles such as "To Kill a Mocking Bird" (which I will turn to shortly), "The Great Gatsby" and "Catcher in the Rye." It won Pulitzer and National Book Award prizes in 1983.
The topic of this post is whether one does, or should, think less of "The Color Purple" if one comes to believe that Ms Walker has anti-Semitic leanings.
Or no matter how reprehensible the creator of a work of art may be, should the object -- in this case a work of fiction -- stand on its own once it has been launched into the realm of the public?
Similarly, should one revise one's views on the merits of "To Kill a Mockingbird" in the wake of the publication of "Go Set a Watchman?"
Arguably, "Watchman," written first, but released 55 years later, was turned into the far more morally uplifting "Mockingbird" over a two-year period with the extensive help of an editor looking for something that would be a lot more saleable.
"I was a first-time writer so I did as I was told," Lee said in 2015, explaining the evolution of her first draft, which depicted the key character, Atticus Finch, as a bigot, into "Mockingbird" where the same man was depicted as determined to see that all races were treated the same, in a court of law at any rate.
Did Lee sacrifice the truth (Finch was based in large part on her father) for fame and profit? Or is the truth not what fiction is all about?
The question is particularly pertinent in the case of "Mockingbird" because the novel has been required reading for vast numbers of American schoolchildren over the years since its publication. Is that because it is just a good yarn, or is it because it is viewed as having a message children should absorb? If the latter, should they now be made acquainted with "Watchman" as well?
These are questions I ask friends from time to time and the answers suggest that people want to find reasons to preserve things they personally like, and are far more willing to devalue things they personally don't like. So far, there does not appear to be a dispassionate single answer.
(I've also written about "Mockingbird" and "Watchman" in earlier posts, which readers can find here and here.)
Showing posts with label Alice Walker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alice Walker. Show all posts
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
You Are What You Read As Much As What You Eat
Most readers are probably familiar with the expression "you are what you eat." It can be taken either literally or figuratively: that the biochemical composition of your body changes on the basis of what you consume (possibly affecting your health), or that your diet reflects your values -- not eating meat because it is wrong to slaughter animals, rather than because it may be unhealthy.
Alternatively, perhaps you are what you read. That, at least is the opinion of one New York Times editor who, not surprisingly, deals with books.
At the moment, The Times is embroiled in a controversy over a recent "By the Book" column in which black American author Alice Walker, who most notably wrote "The Color Purple," is said to have exhibited anti-Semitism. This is because she listed as being on her bookstand a 1995 book by David Icke called "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" that includes material suggesting that a small Jewish elite, contemptuous of the Jewish masses, was responsible for the Holocaust.
Walker, whose only marriage was to a white Jewish lawyer, has been viewed as anti-Semitic on other occasions, in part because she has refused to allow "The Color Purple" to be translated into Hebrew on the grounds that Israel practices a form of apartheid with respect to the Palestinians.
In any event, Pamela Raul, editor of The Times' book review section, said Walker was chosen for an interview because that particular week's section was devoted to poetry and politics.
"She is both a poet and someone known to be very political in her work," Raul said, explaining that The Times does not choose people to interview on the basis of the views that they hold.
"If people espouse beliefs that anyone at The Times finds to be dangerous or immoral, it's important for readers to be aware that they hold those beliefs. The public deserves to know, That's news," the editor said. "The intention of By the Book is to be a portrait of someone through his or her reading life. What people choose to read or not read and what books they find to be influential or meaningful say a lot about who they are."
In other words, you are what you read as much or more than you are what you eat.
It's an interesting idea in part because if one is writing fiction -- and particularly fiction that doesn't rely heavily on plot -- the question of how one builds character is always present.
Alternatively, perhaps you are what you read. That, at least is the opinion of one New York Times editor who, not surprisingly, deals with books.
At the moment, The Times is embroiled in a controversy over a recent "By the Book" column in which black American author Alice Walker, who most notably wrote "The Color Purple," is said to have exhibited anti-Semitism. This is because she listed as being on her bookstand a 1995 book by David Icke called "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" that includes material suggesting that a small Jewish elite, contemptuous of the Jewish masses, was responsible for the Holocaust.
Walker, whose only marriage was to a white Jewish lawyer, has been viewed as anti-Semitic on other occasions, in part because she has refused to allow "The Color Purple" to be translated into Hebrew on the grounds that Israel practices a form of apartheid with respect to the Palestinians.
In any event, Pamela Raul, editor of The Times' book review section, said Walker was chosen for an interview because that particular week's section was devoted to poetry and politics.
"She is both a poet and someone known to be very political in her work," Raul said, explaining that The Times does not choose people to interview on the basis of the views that they hold.
"If people espouse beliefs that anyone at The Times finds to be dangerous or immoral, it's important for readers to be aware that they hold those beliefs. The public deserves to know, That's news," the editor said. "The intention of By the Book is to be a portrait of someone through his or her reading life. What people choose to read or not read and what books they find to be influential or meaningful say a lot about who they are."
In other words, you are what you read as much or more than you are what you eat.
It's an interesting idea in part because if one is writing fiction -- and particularly fiction that doesn't rely heavily on plot -- the question of how one builds character is always present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)