There seems to be a level of reverence around this guy and even I, who knows no other scholar of literature, have heard of him. How did this reputation get made?
Printable View
There seems to be a level of reverence around this guy and even I, who knows no other scholar of literature, have heard of him. How did this reputation get made?
Probably through the quantity of his critical output. He's written one novel. Mostly he leaves that to the big boys and girls.
While I don't revere him I enjoy his critical voice. I have a book to return... today if possible, Walt Whitman selected poems from the American Poets Project, where he is listed as the editor; his introductory pages are quite insightful.
• Shmoop's's article does him some justice... https://www.shmoop.com/harold-bloom/
• article from a fan: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/l...-a7681621.html
• article from a critic: http://www.cosmoetica.com/D1-DES1.htm
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY
Why the anti-intellectual snark, ennison? Bloom is an academic, not a novelist (despite the one novel). Should historians be out there making history, instead of chronicling it? Should journalists murder people, instead of reporting on the murders of others? Should theoretical physicists blow up cities instead of theorizing about sub-atomic principles?Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
A basic principle of criticism is that we should criticize a work for what it is, not for what it isn't.
It is true that critiques are not novels, that mathematical proofs are not feats of engineering, and that analyses of political movements are not revolutions. Why this should make them somehow immature is beyond me. In addition, it seems (to borrow ennison's approach to criticism) a juvenile objection to “ivory tower” intellectuals. On a literary forum where people gather to criticize works of literature, ennison's position seems particularly strange.
Well there you have it
Bloom—an academic? And what right of meaning should this term be lend exactly? The notion strikes me as sacrilegious, and indeed it proves itself to be so to the utter region, but then again, it could be a lapse in judgement from my part: perhaps an academic is a degenerate novelist, one that, being thoroughly acquainted with his total inability to prove himself worthy of any valuable artistic finality, sets out to obtain his revenge for being a lesser artist, a nicely made up ersatz, a simulacrum of the true subject that he makes into his object, and thus distorting its beauty, brought down to his prosaic level, for having had the temerity to be infinitely more gifted than him. What a lovely thing an academic is, then.
It has been said many times that litetary critics are frustrated novelists.
The notion that critics are jealous of those they criticize is a fairly common one. But it can hardly apply to Bloom, He is the first to say that Shakespeare is “infinitely more gifted than him (sic)”, to borrow empty seraph's meandering prose. Saying Bloom is jealous of Shakespeare is akin to saying that the angels are jealous when they sing God's praises.
Bloom is (and has been for decades now) a Professor at Yale. That makes him an academic. His job is to teach young people about literature, and he has offered his services to those who can't afford to go to Yale, or can't get admitted to Yale, or simply don't want to attend Yale by writing dozens of books. I've read only a couple, so I'm no expert on Bloom.
Nonetheless, I think literature is a worth Humanity to study, and to think (as empty seraph seems to, although it's difficult to tell) that discussing literature “distorts its beauty” and brings it “down to his (Bloom's) prosaic level” is not only incorrect, but silly. Why would it?
I'll grant that some secondary schools teach their students that poems are riddles, the meaning of which must be deciphered. This too is silly, although many young students benefit from learning how to comprehend the literal meaning of transposed poetic lines.
Criticism is a natural and essential human function: Philosophy involves critiques of modes of thinking and behavior; Theology involves critiques of sacred literature; mathematics involves critiques of mathematical language (i.e. discovering what can be logically inferred from a set of postulates and definitions). Science itself is dependent on literature, if scientists didn't write down the results of their experiments, they could not “stand on the shoulders of giants”. In a sense, any critique of the report of an experiment in a scientific journal is a form of literary criticism.
Why should novels, poems and plays be immune from criticism, when other forms of literature (math, science, philosophy, etc.) are not? I'm sure any critic worth his salt hopes for the best when reading a novel, although he is sometimes disappointed. Bloom – of all literary critics the most worshipful – hardly seems jealous, or eager to diminish the achievements of others (although he occasionally bashes some authors, often anti-Semitic ones, like Eliot and Pound).
Should Mr H Bloom's opinions on an author or text happen to agree with mine I would not be upset. Same applies to Mr Pope on spiritual or moral matters. The word "worshipful" is the one that troubles me. (But only a little since I don't care really about the opinions of any prof of literature) It is of course true that one need not be able to bake to criticise a cake or go to the North Pole to know it's damn cold in the winter. But the comment of GBS has a little relevance : "Those who can etc..." GBS omitted to add that those who cannot teach actually teach the teachers. Tessimond saw through the uncreative who wrote "books on books on books" but perhaps that was during one of his bipolar episodes. But Mr HB has not read everything (no one has) and his tastes are only as democratic as his personal opinions allow. The last point seems to support that. Should I dismiss or bash Mr Bellow as a writer because he was a bit of a crud, or Vonnegut because he was a hypocrite? Well I guess I could but I won't ... not yet.
While the status of Bloom as critic and academic cannot be ignored, he is famous because he wrote (Just like Dawkins, Umberto Eco and many others did) a book very accessible (or more than one) that made people who had no commitment to study literature to feel as if he was going deep in the knowledge of literature (or biology, or semiotics). This pop status does not translate in the academic field, he is a well-known more because of his popularity but had not the same impact of better critics. The whole defence of canon is itself a marketing thing, rather than academic matter.
I myself have made no commitment to study literature (I like literature, and I like the form of literature called "criticism", but I haven't made any formal study of it, nor, equally likely, made a commitment to study it which I did not fulfill). The only Bloom book I own is "Genius", the title of which implies that Bloom loves to praise other authors. Indeed, his enthusiasm for the canon (and for literature in general) is infectious, and that's probably why his books are popular. I'd guess he's an outstanding teacher, because enthusiasm is an important attribute for a teacher.
It's ironic, I suppose, that partly due to his love of the canon, Bloom has become a canonical critic (in popular circles, at least). According to the book jacket of "Genius" he's a "master entertainer" (Newsweek), "the indispensable critic" (NY Review of Books), and "Our most valuable critic" (Boston Globe). Academics sometimes dislike popular entertainers (like Bloom) because they are TOO accessible (and too popular). Nonetheless, Bloom appears to have read every important (Western) literary work and to be able to make entertaining and insightful comments about most of them. To the non-professional, literature (critiques included) must be entertaining, or why bother with it? Bloom (it seems to me) qualifies in this regard.
That is where the pop status of him is overated, reading Bloom, I got the exactly oposite impression, very knowlledable on specific areas of western literatura (almost the anglo-saxon canon, some extra spice for french or close enough cannons) but lacking a lot elsewhere. Granted, he is not a blind bat, so he knows the main names of spanish, portuguese, latin-american literature, but his comments about them are swallow and pretty much uninteresting. I enjoy the texts where he is talking about, for example, Emily Dickinson, because it is his area and his passion is over there and there is no taint of his Shakespeare obssession.
This is something else, I find odd that his Anxiety of Influence starts with him having to remove Shakespeare from the object of analyse, as if Shakespeare didn't belong to the same process of formation and influence of all others. It is weird, because either he wants or not, Shakespeare is all over the place, but it seems to me he refuses to work with the idea Shakespeare had "anxiety". His bias towards this freudian aspect of literature is a big nagging. Also his war against the so called school of ressentiment (marxism, feminism, etc.) seems to me an early and intelectual way to go "political correctness is killing our culture" "SJW", a very narrow conservative position (and his israeli nationalism got him in weird places latter too), instead of reckogning the importance of such authors and how this debate is part of the force of maintainence and transformation of the cannon that is beyond his power to contain and an academic should have a more objective approach to the matter.
If you consider that in, say the UK, there are about 180000 books published a year and a few hundred others in minority languages (Welsh, Ghaidhlig...) then you would have to admit the impossibility of any one person keeping up with that. Many of these titles are manuals, textbooks, first readers, non-fiction of a very specific kind etc. but that still leaves a substantial amount of what might be described as literary fiction. We rely on arbiters like reviewers and critics to give us guidance. Some of these we trust. Some we don't. I trust Allan Massie in that respect as I find him a sympathetic and intelligent reviewer who never seems to be nastily waspish and he himself is a practising author. Perhaps many people like Bloom's style, perhaps many find he gives them angles on texts which help to enlighten them, perhaps others find his opinions chime with their own. There are those who read reviewers / critics rather than texts because they are not inclined to the (fairly minimal ) intellectual exercise involved in reading or grudge the time. It is probably quite useful for a young person to have the guidance of a well-read critic. It is absurd for a well-read adult to require it. At some point you develop enough knowledge and taste of your own to create your own "canon"
Although critics occasionally help illuminate the text (I read Ulysses with their aid), the main reason to read critiques is for their own sake. If a book about baseball or football can be entertaining, why not a book about books?
Why not indeed. But I neither idolise nor revere any author or critic. Bloom is interesting. Kenneth Rexroth is very interesting. Allan Massie knows what he is talking about when it comes to distinguishing the good from the better. So I trust Massie's literary opinions. On politics he is frequently right-wing-foot-in-mouth (to mix metaphors for clumsiness' sake)I remember him clearly trying to defend the UK's (and USA's) support of Saddam Husssein during his assault on Iran. So I do not trust him on politics. Bloom, Rexroth and Massie can all use language well. As can many other critics, commentators and guides.
He is an interesting and entertaining writer. But he also holds fairly conservative views, and many people love him for it. Bloom believes in, and defends, 'the canon'. Unfortunately, just because that canon consists of dead, white European males some seem to think it's worthless and should be ditched. I don't know about other countries, but here in the UK the academic/literary world is dominated by people with liberal-Left views who seem more interested in race, identity and sexuality than artistic excellence. Right now, there is a campaign by black British academics to "de-colonize" university curriculums, which is another way of saying "cut out as many dead white Europeans as possible and replace them with black writers." Imagine a group of Africans going to China and telling them that their Universities were "too Chinese"!! Another group were trying to have the poet laureate replaced by Benjamin Zephaniah, a Jamaican poet influenced by hip hop and rap music. I am reading a biography of the 19th-century English poet Swinburne at the moment (almost forgotten today- just another of those dead, white European males). He once wrote a selection of poems for a literary magazine, one in French, one in Latin, one in Italian and one in ancient Greek. And by the standards of his time that wasn't extraordinary. Benjamin Zephaniah can barely write coherent English, let alone French or Latin!
Bloom's real gripe is that we've replaced deep learning and study with an insipid political correctness. In other words, it doesn't really matter what you read, or how much, or how intelligently, so long as you hold the 'correct' PC views. I have printed off his list of the great books ('Bloom's canon' as it is known) and am following it closely.
Bloom real grip is a BS conservative non-sense. He is quick to add like a hypocrite several modern jewish writers in his "world canon" list because he is Jewish. He is doing exactly what he "complains" about african americans (in the case) or feminists. Also his claims that the canon is purely aesthetic is infantile since aesthetics is in many aspects ideological and he also goes for it, when he leaves some very relevant dead white man such as Foucault or Derrida from his lists only because they are marxists.
The world canon does not belong to anyone or any culture, when afro-american academics go to introduce african authors in universities, they are not damaging the Canon at all. Chinua Achebe didnt remove Conrad from the canon, he added several names, after all and several women writers from XIX century (and before) were added to the canon because the efforts by XX century feminists and their close readings of the works. Literature is open and so it is the canon, that is the point. You are not replaced (if you are not good enough to survive without a circunstancial reading by students, then you are just not canon. Melville, Dante, Machiavelli, Homer, and god know how many authors had periods of ostracism and bigger enemies than some random teacher somewhere and they still canonical), the canon grows. It is absolutely ridiculous to think when you add several perspectives and culture (like England, hardly a dead white man country now), they will read and vallue the same literature. And please Swinburne created a national sport: to pinpoint how over-the top his poems were, already in the XIX century by several white man now dead. He is not that impressive and talking four languages? Are you sure guys like Keats or Cervantes are such multilingual prodigies?
Bloom failure is probally his own sucess, because otherwise, he would have killed works of art with aesthetical merits just because they do not fit his ideological standpoint.
I wouldn't argue with the idea that Swinburne could write badly but he wrote a lot and some of it is good. He ain't as powerful as say Tennyson or Browning but poetry needs its Swinburnes too.
Tennyson, another dead white man, was quite maligned in the XX century, way more than Swinburne because Tennyson was the main representative of that age, yet, his reading never went to the point he was not read anymore or that his influence couldn't be denied. Swinburne, with his ocasional merit, is less read than then because he is a lesser poet, not because he was a dead white man having his reputation smeared by some imaginary conspirary of diversity pawns.
Let's face it, Ideology has a say on the canon, just like in any canon, but it is not something that can be corrupt "the canon".
Swinburne probably never had sex with a monkey and then ate it, although he once claimed he had. His poetry is noted for his skill with rhymes and rhythms. He was also (to return to the subject of this thread) a noted critic, who wrote:
Quote:
To Walt Whitman in America
Send but a song oversea for us,
Heart of their hearts who are free,
Heart of their singer, to be for us
More than our singing can be;
Ours, in the tempest at error,
With no light but the twilight of terror;
Send us a song oversea!
Decolonizing a classroom is not simply about cutting out white European males. Whether we like it or not our classrooms have changed. I look at my students in a first year survey class, very few of whom are white, and they go several months before they get to read an author that somewhat speaks to their personal experience. I believe strongly in the value of the canon, I work on eighteenth century precursors to the the novel (mostly Defoe), but teaching with a mindfulness to the full experiences of our students and to the message we are putting across as educators is important. Looking at my specialty, eighteenth-century British literature, I conceive of decolonizing a classroom on the subject as more akin to making sure if I teach Johnson's Rasselas or Behn's Oroonoko I also make sure to teach Equiano's Interesting Narrative so I don't perpetuate the silencing of minority voices.
If I was sitting in Mongolia studying English literature I would expect the writers not to be speaking to my experience but their own. Why study what you don't like because these writers didn't grow up in a blackhouse. For that I'll read my own poets etc.
I think that ignores the pedogogical purpose of the classroom and the context of the institution. I don't think students of colour expect Middle English lyrics to speak directly of their experience, but we should be conscious of the dynamics we perpetuate when choosing course content. I personally think historical surveys need to be scrapped in favour of generic, theoretical and mechanical frameworks for first year classes. It sends a bad message to students to suggest through the curriculum that their interest in something like African American literature is not relevant unless they first pass through the gates of canonical literature that may not be as relevant to them. I'm merely commenting on what "decolonizing" the classroom means as a practice rather than as a supposed bogeyman of anti-white resentment.
Also, the racialized rhetoric above (the first post I responded to not yours) caries a problematic suggestion that a person of colour is less authentically Canadian/British/American than white students.
Quote:
If I was sitting in Mongolia studying English literature I would expect the writers not to be speaking to my experience but their own. Why study what you don't like because these writers didn't grow up in a blackhouse. For that I'll read my own poets etc.
This is very strange. It is like a teacher like Pip is the sole responsable for your choices and you can only read what he suggests/demands. There are or should be multiple places that will allow some exchange of experience for a reader, not just the school class such as libraries, book shops, clubs, foruns... And more strange is the idea you will study what you like. It is study, some degree of challenge and lack of knowledge is expected and the teacher has every chance to work with you and everyone in the class (and one student that "likes" a book you don't already justify that inclusion) before you can judge it out.
Another problem with Bloom's "Canon" is that many high school and (even) college students find it difficult. I've spoken to teachers who are expected to teach Shakespeare to teen-aged students for whom English is a second language -- and who can barely read modern English. Heck, on these very pages, Kev (a smart, well-read guy) confesses to finding Shakespeare difficult.
Learning to read difficult texts is important, of course. But I fear we scare teenagers off. They may learn to think that "literary" novels, plays and poems are beyond them, or boring, and that they should stick to genre fiction, Young Adult novels, etc. Teachers should try to instill a love of literature in their students -- and canonical texts are not always the best way to do that (or, if they are, texts should be chosen that are both canonical and geared to the interests and reading comprehension levels of the students).
I'm guessing that Bloom's students at Yale are better equipped to read many of Bloom's canonical texts than many students attending Community College.
In response to ennison: why read any fiction you don't like? Yet that's exactly what teaching the canon in public (state) schools attempts to force children to do, often unsuccessfully. Political Correctness cuts both ways. Bloom thinks admiring the canon is "PC"; others think reading about other cultures is. My opinion: high school students should be encouraged to read those books they actually like (although, of course, tastes differ, and you can't please everyone).
A world canon is obviously filled with other cultures and nobody is making anyone not read what they like. As I said, the classroom is not the only place you will have contact with literature. It has specific objectives. Also, the ideas of "reading what I like" reduces reading experience to pleasure. It can be, but it also create a generation a bit too pampered.
Anyways, Shakespeare is difficult. Addults must admit it. He is Shakespeare, one of the most complexes artists ever. There are however plenty of ways to approach him. Sometimes I wonder, every student that would give up shakespeare because some sort of difficulty and go back to, i dunno, Hunger Games, has the same attitude playing the very complex videogames we have today. WIll him give up and come back to River Raid and Pac Man from Atari? Why instead of pleasure we dont say the satisfaction?
Of course, in Brazil we have similar debates, and I remind about Guimarăes Rosa. He is a XX century author, so, language is supposed to be less a challenge. Supposed, because Guimarăes is joycean: he prefers to work with the way the words sounds, so he even refused to use the register of words that we would find in a dictionary. Also, he used a specific form of portuguese, used in a countryside region (so specific that people tought he invented it until the day he went to Rio de Janeiro with a cowboy from this parts and the dude talked like they talked in the book). He wanted to represent the text with flow of oral speech and used wallet-words and what to not. To make it harder, he was a modernist, he has books swaping chronologies and his most famous book, Grande Sertőes Vereda, in almost a continual stream of conciouness for 600 pages in that style. Hard for students to tackle? Yeah, except in Guimarăes City, if you go there, you find group of kids 8-14 years old, able to recite entire portions of book. They will work as tourist guides for you and sometimes they are put together for shows and what not. Quite amazing. Those kids - it is a small countryside city, so nobody is exactly born within "high" educational groups - enjoy and learn Guimarăes Rosa. Perhaps the difference is in how the work is done with them?
Hi, Camilo,
I´m putting this link in (seems to be the most recent translation), so that people might get an idea of Rosas´s language:
https://www.wordswithoutborders.org/...guimaraes-rosa
I repeat that if all you want from a course of literature in another language from another culture is to have your own experiences validated then you are in the wrong bleeding course pal.
I think students taking a course in a foreign language are beyond the scope or relevance of the conversation. I'm referring to my Canadian students of colour. Also, I don't think your point substantively addresses the appropriateness of foregrounding certain canonical texts in the education of students.
A teacher selecting material for a course reading list has to consider a number of factors: relevance, accessibility, and coherence. More goes into selecting a reading list than simply slotting in a random assortment of important works. The course will always be more effective by selecting texts that speak to each other in some way.
The first course I taught 6 years ago when I was fresh out of my MA was titled "Sexual Rebellion" and was focused on a selection of texts that dealt with the topic of taboo sexuality. I organized it into three subunits: Banned or censored texts, 20th-century American feminist and queer texts, and post 1980s film. Students need digestible chunks.
The course materials included: Fanny Hill, Libertine poetry, Mrs. Warren's Profession, Ginsberg, Adrienne Rich, Sex-positive and sex-negative feminist theory, The Vagina Monologues, The SCUM Manifesto, Paris is Burning, and Crash.
I think as educators we have a duty not simply to teach a text but also to justify its relevance to the student. Students should be challenged but they should also be considered as agents in their own learning and the teacher has a responsibility to them that is complex and begins with the choice of subjects. Cleland and Shaw can be made to be relevant to current students by framing discussions around pornography, prostitution and the male gaze. My pedagogical opinions may disagree with those of my colleagues.
Bloom's canon clearly supports elitist principles. Familiarity with the "canon" provides entree into certain social circles. There's nothing wrong with this, in a way. All those Cambridge and Oxford men familiar with the "Western Canon" (in the good old days, that meant Homer, Virgil and the other Classics, not modern literature) could identify each other by such familiarity, and could seek the company of those with similar educations (and class backgrounds) as those they had enjoyed themselves.
Back in 19th Century England (if the novels I've read have informed me correctly), Greek and Latin classics were mandatory at Oxford, Cambridge, and Eton. Byron, Shelley, Austen (and to a lesser extent Shakespeare) were light, leisure reading. I somehow feel that discovering Blake or Keats in one's rooms at Winchester, and seeing such a discovery as a secret pleasure, gave the young scholars a thrill that assigning those texts in school does not.
Perhaps I'm prejudiced. I read constantly as a teenager, but hated the assigned readings from school. I'll grant that this was probably mere contrariness. I had good taste in literature: I loved Lord of the Rings, Huckleberry Finn, Orlando Furiosso, Kidnapped, and a great many other novels that I continue to think excellent). I have read most of the assigned novels I disliked as a teenager, and some are very good. Nonetheless, I don't think "Moby Dick" would appeal to many 15-year-olds. They read it as a duty (personally, I felt it was my duty to avoid reading it. I thought that a C+ on a pop-quiz about a chapter one HADN'T read demonstrated superior intelligence to an A on a chapter one had.)
I know I'm merely rambling (lest anyone think I'm attempting a cogent argument), and I defer to Orphan Pip and any other educators (especially high school teachers) for their opinions. What is the best way to teach English Literature in High School (years 9-12, prior to University)? Does the notion that the "canon" is clearly elitist (in the ways I mentioned before) turn off some students? Do high school teachers still run on about "character development" (which may have been a sort of post-Freudian fad back 4 decades ago when I was in high school)? Why did I (who discussed novels continuously with my friends and brothers) find English Literature classes in high school so intolerable?
So you aren't really teaching in Kuala Lumper. I'd be hard put to think of many significant contributions to English literature that emanated from a non-English speaking area. (Yeah I know about India but that is an exception and the majority of its literature is not English anyway) If it is in Canada you are teaching then your point is entirely coherent.
And If I recall correctly, Bloom does not have Rosa in his World Canon, which implies Bloom is not familiar with the World and with the Canon.
That's a good point. However, let us posit some 15-year-old kid who is fascinated with physics. He studies it on his own. He reads physics journals. But, somehow, physics class in high school bores him, and this antipathy prevents him from studying physics further. Wouldn't that be a problem? Shouldn't schools foster enthusiasm in those already enthusiastic?
What is the point of studying literature in high school? I'm not a professional educator (and, again, I'd appreciate their feedback) but I'd suggest:
1) English classes promote basic reading skills and literacy.
2) Literature classes promote writing skills. Writing well is not only important in many fields, but it also promotes precision and accuracy of thought (just as math classes promote and develop logical thinking, even if the students will never prove geometry theorems once they graduate).
3) Literature classes can provide students with the skills and knowledge that they need in order to develop life-long love of literature. I'll grant that many students who already have basic literacy need help learning to read poetry (or Shakespeare's plays).
4) Literature classes should promote basic cultural literacy. Kids who graduate from high school should know who Romeo and Juliet are, and should be aware of Homer and Tolstoy. That's one point of the "canon"; it creates common ground from a cultural, moral, and aesthetic perspective. Perhaps the Bible is the most essential Western canonical book in this regard (and it is never taught in U.S. schools).
I think #1 and #2 are the most important goals of English class. But #3 and 4 are important as well. The question is: how can they be most effectively realized?
One more point:
If English Lit. classes are designed to teach writing skills, shouldn't students who are expected to write critical essays read critical essays? Back when I went to school, we wrote critical essays and read novels, short stories, poems and plays. Since we were never expected to write novels, short stories, poems or plays, this seems misguided.
Correct me if I'm wrong, OP, but I believe your use of "white European males" refers to race (and of course sex) rather than location or national belonging. In other words, you are talking about males whose ancestors (at least some of them) were Europeans. If your decolonization project "is not simply about" exclusion based on race and sex, it follows that it is also about those things. I have some questions.
Will you be excluding male authors with DNA from the English and French colonists of Canada? In light of China's aggressive imperialist policies (in Africa, for example), will you be excluding male Chinese authors too? Will that include Chinese males from Taiwan, Singapore, Canada, the United States, and elsewhere in the considerable Chinese diaspora? How about "white Europeans" (ethnically speaking) from former Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South or Central America? These are not rhetorical questions. Please answer them.
I was using the language of the post I replied to. I don't think it is about exclusion, of course cutting is necessary when we have limited space in a curriculum, but about making room for marginalized voices. I think you omitted the part where I also spoke about my research being focused primarily on Defoe. Of course in a Canadian context the inclusion of First Nations writers is usually a primary concern for us as educators.
Edit: Note that in the same post I gave the example of teaching writing by a black author, Equiano, alongside white eighteenth-century authors.
With all due respect, OP, how dumb do you think I am? :) "Cutting" anyone on the basis of a race/sex victimology (even glucosed as "making room for marginalized voices") is the same thing as excluding them because of race or sex. Of course there are legitimate criteria for not using a given author based on the needs of a particular class (we're already doing Dickens so let's spare them Trollope), but you're just using that to further an ideology that has nothing to do with teaching the humanities (and which I would argue is toxic to it). Reducing individuals (including individual writers) to paradigms of racial and sexual identity groups bullying one other in and out of the margins cheapens what it means to be a human capable of liberality. You will find there is room for all of us.
True. I didn't mention your research because I was not directing my comments at you personally but at the moral flaws in "decolonizing" a classroom through excluding writers on the basis of sex and race. You, as I remember, are completely cool. Good luck with your research. Defoe was a bit of a pisser but at least had the courage to go against the grain.
It sounds interesting. Will you be including accounts of first contact by Jesuit missionaries (who were, by and large, savaged by them)? Nothing like a little historical context. :)
I think there's a substantial difference. If you approach the process of choosing the text with the goal that the course material be diverse and relevant not only to the interest of the students but also to the current state of scholarship in the field. Why are you assuming certain texts have an a priori position within the curriculum and that not choosing them for a course list is cutting them on the basis of race.
It's not a matter of reducing individuals to particular categories. Race and sexuality are topics of literature whether written by white people or by straight people. If you want to have a discussion about the construction of race in the 18th century it only makes sense to include the voices of racialized writers in the discussion.
Again it can just as easily be thought of as including authors who have previously been excluded into a discussion. Why was their exclusion legitimate but swapping them into current discussions is illegitimate?