Cross-posted at Deeply Problematic
Last month, I covered Newsweek's myopic list of the 50 books that define and explain these confusing modern times . To recap: the list was 84% white, 78% male, 96% straight, and 66% both white and male, and that is not relevant to these modern times.
In response to this list, I presented 50 Books for Post-Modern Times , and began soliciting submissions from the Feministing Community and the readers of Deeply Problematic. I've already gotten a lot of great responses from folks - thank you so much!
I have re-named the project, and it is now called:
What is 50BPT? It's a list of 50 writers who shed light on society as it is today (its virtues and its flaws) without the benefit of bodies that fit into the canon. When lists of great writers usually reinforce that the important words and ideas are created by those with the most privilege, this list seeks to prioritize the voices of writers who speak most knowledgeably of the issues our society faces.
What writers can I nominate? Women writers, writers of color, LBGQ writers, and trans writers are the writers I have in mind here. I'm particularly interested in writers featuring intersectional challenges. I understand that oppression does not fit into neat little categories and is definitely not limited to the isms implied above. If you have a writer who faces or faced a significant oppression unmentioned here who challenges societal ideas of what a successful and noteworthy writer is, please send it in and we'll discuss.
What if I have a writer who's really relevant to feminist conversation, but doesn't fit into the guidelines above? I may do an extra-50PBT entry outside of the confines of this project. Write me about him anyway.
What books are eligible? Any kind of work - novel, poetry, history, short stories, anthology. Nominations for a body of work are fine, but please mention a specific work.
When will 50BPT begin and end? I will post the first writer on August 3rd, and will post one a day until September 22.
Who should contribute? Everyone!
To contribute:
-
Leave a comment here with your submission, including contact information and why you love them, or
Email me at deeplyproblematic@gmail.com with your submission.
In your communication, tell me:
-
How they inspire you
What they contribute to our cultural narrative
Why they are relevant today.
Please keep descriptions of each work/writer to 250 words if you can.
Everyone who contributes to this list will be quoted and linked, and I will inform you of your entry before it runs.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. If you haven't...I look forward to hearing from you!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: CALL FOR ENTRIES: 50 Books for Problematic Times.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15273
I'm not following. A book is suddenly less valid based on the gender and race of the author?
No, but it's nice to read literature that comes from a different perspective instead of reading literature that's only from the white male perspective.
The only problem I have with this is that it's assuming white male is a holistic perspective. It's not. There are millions of white males, and they're all different and have vividly different voices.
A white male that is ten has a different perspective than a white male that is forty-nine.
A white male living in Japan has a different perspective than a white male living in Ireland.
I'm just saying. Books are books. The author doesn't matter; their words and stories do.
There may be no holistic perspective, but there are perspectives that appropriate, exoticize, and do violence to people and cultures.
Authors matter because who we are and what we think about the world gets reflected in the words we write and the stories we tell.
Books are not just books. They are written by different people who approach their subject matter not only with different perspectives, but also with myriad biases. These biases (racisms, sexisms, etc) are too often unexamined.
I get sick of reading works by authors who haven't considered that it might not be right for them to tell a particular story just because they can write it in a compelling way and find a publisher who eats it up.
I agree with this. But it's not as if the original list was exclusively white, just predominately. And the fact is that that simply reflects the literary world. Most authors were historically (even in early modern times) white men. So obviously, in a list of classic or influential books, most authors will be white. That *is* an unfortunate fact, and a problem with society that persists even today. But it doesn't change the fact that most authors are white and male, and it's unfair to imply that Newsweek is somehow discriminating against minorities because their list reflects facts and history. Furthermore, only about 10% of the population is homosexual, and until very recently homosexuality was seen as a sin/crime/whatever. So is it really all that surprising they only 4% of the list represents the gay movement?
I have no problem with the OP's plan, in creating an alternative list for minorities. I think it's important that the achievements of such people are recognized beyond a select few. But it's the badmouthing of Newsweek's list that puts me off. She's angry essentially because the list did not take into account affirmative action or some crap and disproportionately include minorities at the expense of more worthy books. And that's not right. As I've said, whites (and to a lesser extent men) dominate the literary industry, especially in the modern world. Thus, most of the authors will be white. Don't attack Newsweek because they seek to provide an unbiased account of influential literary works.
"affirmative action or some crap?" !!!
This whole nation's history is a story of affirmative action for a select group of men deemed white (and the women attached to them). Why continue to celebrate that?
1. I don't think you really understand RMJ's list at all.
2. This comment of yours: "She's angry essentially because the list did not take into account affirmative action or some crap and disproportionately include minorities at the expense of more worthy books," shows that you really have no grasp on what affirmative action actually does but buying into the stereotype of AA lifting up some mediocore minority and putting them in place of some excellent majority candidate. Not how it works.
Enlighten me then. How exactly does it work?
As an aside, I don't think that AA lifts up "some medicore minority" for "an excellent majority". I think AA often lifts up "a comparable minority" to "a slightly more qualified majority".
This whole nation's history is a story of affirmative action for a select group of men deemed white (and the women attached to them). Why continue to celebrate that?
a. They are not celebrating that, and as I've already said, that is an unfortunate fact. However it is not unique to "this country" (whichever you may mean), as historically very few states have been egalitarian.
b. Due to said unfortunate fact, most books have been written by white men, and the vast majority by whites. Thus, any "best of" list will disprportionately feature white men. To do otherwise would not produce a true "best of" list.
It is not my job to educate you on AA. Maybe you should do some research on the subject instead of assuming I do it for you.
Also, why would the majority candidate always be "slightly more qualified?" Is it just too much to even imagine a minority candidate being just as qualified, even more qualified, than the majority?
Er... what? Not one sentence in your post makes sense.
I am aware of the definition of AA, and I've looked it up. It If you've come across some alternate definition of "how it works", please, enlighten me. If you refuse, we have nothing more to discuss regarding the matter.
Secondly... what the hell? When did I say a minority candidate would always be "slightly less qualified"? If the minority candidate is indeed more qualified, said candidate will be chosen, but that is not affirmative action. AA comes into play when you've got a minority candidate that is equal or almost equal to a majority candidate. AA will then cause the employer to choose the minority.
It's pretty fucking simple. Stop trying to twist my words.
Most BOOKS have been written by white men, or most PUBLISHED books have been? Just Google some of the examples of racism in the publishing industry and you'll have that idea squashed flat in no time.
I'm staying out of this for the most part since others are doing a fine job of taking you to task, but LOL at "more worthy" and "unbiased account of influential literary works."
Worthiness is extremely subjective. You can't, and Newsweek can't, objectively define literary worth. They are privileging and disproportionately representing white and male voices as worthy when there is a a wealth of equally worthwhile literature from voices that are not white and male. And I doubt that Newsweek - a bastion of elite media voices - is unbiased.
Furthermore, it's insulting to imply that white male authors are "coddled" when they make up like 65% of modern published authors. Why don't you tell that to a guy sending in his manuscript for the 40th time?
Maybe read up on how a literary canon gets formed, and that might shed some light on why/how this list is predominately comprised of works by white male authors. It isn't because white men write more; I assure you.